Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 1

July 1
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 1, 2014.

Robotrain
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 8%23Robotrain

Boom!!



 * 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. At a glance, Boom looks long enough that separate pages make a certain amount of sense, but if someone wants to start a merge discussion, I won't protest. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Boom!! → Boom! (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This redirect is bothering me a bit, so I think the better route, at this point, is to start a discussion here, rather than have an edit war with myself. Anyways, should this redirect be: ...So, what'll it be? Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Retargeted to Boom?
 * 2) Kept at its current target Boom!?
 * 3) Be deleted?
 * 4) ...Or, crazily enough, should something else happen, like merging Boom and Boom!? (I do realize that this is a discussion about the redirect Boom!! and not about the state of those two disambiguation pages, but this redirect's existence brings up this thought as well.)
 * Keep: "Boom!!" is a plausible typo for "Boom!" Merging the DABs in question is a good idea IMO, but it is out of the scope of this discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as a plausible typo. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * REtarget to Boom and merge Boom! to Boom so that we only have 1 disambiguation page. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and put mergeto/mergefrom tags on Boom! and Boom to start a discussion in the correct forum and, Boom!, the problem is solved. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

More Windows redirects…



 * 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 no consensus and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely search terms. ï¿½ (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP → History of Microsoft Windows (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Windows 200x → Windows NT (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_200x&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]


 * Keep Windows 95/98/..., Delete Windows 200x. The 200x one is ridiculous, the other not really. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all  - neither is useful, really. TheChampionMan1234 01:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It was not a good idea to join these...
 * Keep "Windows 200x": there were Windows 2000, Windows 2003 and Windows 2008, all belonging to NT operating system family.
 * Weak delete "Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP": it nearly qualifies for retargetting to Criticism of Windows Vista (changes from Windows Vista broke backward compatibility, limiting some software to these operating systems). Still, the list lacks "ME/", which makes it inaccurate and leads to possible confusion. Furthermore, by now most pieces of software have dropped compatibility with Windows 9x, but maintain versions for Windows 2000/XP, which further shrinks the window of applicability for this redirect.
 * — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Number   5  7  11:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.

Linguistic comparison of Chinese and English



 * 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Linguistic comparison of Chinese and English → Chinese language (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Appears to be a bot malfunction about a deleted page. TheChampionMan1234 06:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC) 
 * Weak keep: this is an bypassed double redirect, which originally pointed to article. It is there since 2005, and I would rather see some discussion in target article then this redirect deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment "Chinese and English compared" was merged into "Chinese language" -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Number   5  7  11:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - the target contains sufficient relevant content and is where a similarly titled article was merged.. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

ZipDash



 * 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 Google Traffic. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ZipDash → Google Maps (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Notable company that was acquired by Google and it could be expanded per WP:REDLINK TheChampionMan1234 06:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC) 
 * Strong keep: perfectly valid redirect. I just don't see how ZipDash can be notable separately from Google Maps. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to List of mergers and acquisitions by Google where it is mentioned. The company is not mentioned at the present target but, conversely, Refine target to Google Maps; deletion is contra-indicated since there is no evidence that it is separately notable. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC) The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a mention of ZipDash to Google Maps to address the lack of mention concerns. Retargetting to market wire article is the worst thing one can do with this redirect IMO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Google Traffic, and article about the actual product of ZipDash. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Number   5  7  11:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Google Traffic is fine. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:DONTCITEESSAYSASPOLICY



 * 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 Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 07:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * DONTCITEESSAYSASPOLICY → Essays are not policy (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

On one hand, there is an essay Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy, which resembles the name of redirect to the point that I find the redirect confusing. But the other hand, this redirect points to its current target for 5 years now. Obviously, it is not a deletion candidate, but should it stay as is or be retargetted? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC) 
 * Comment would a hatnote suffice?-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dabify. Might as well dabify it: It's been done before ... at least twice. Steel1943  (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy, which seems the more logical target. These are similar essays that link to each other, so I don't think this will cause a great deal of confusion. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Number   5  7  11:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Retarget per BDD, and add hatnotes to both pages -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

Living Titanic Survivors



 * 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 Passengers of the RMS Titanic. The fact that there are no living Titanic survivors was considered, though we have redirects from nonexistent topics, especially when a reasonable person might think that they do exist. See, for example, Andorran Navy. This might sound flippant, but in 20-30 years or so, we might look to delete these. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Living Titanic Survivors → RMS Titanic (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → RMS Titanic (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Redirect should be deleted because it is misleading and inaccurate. The last living survivor died over five years ago and keeping this gives people the impression that there are still Titanic survivors alive today. 67.87.211.170 (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nominator. TheChampionMan1234 04:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment note the existence of -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and histmerge per nom. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC) (updated 04:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC))  (updated 22:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC))
 * Comment Per our copyright policy, the "survivors" redirect may not be deleted: it was previously an article that was merged into the ship's article, and deletion is absolutely prohibited because it prevents the attribution of various authors, violating the attribution requirements of the GFDL and the CC-by-sa-3.0 licenses. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Histmerge could deal with that. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 04:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not! A history merge would result in ridiculous page history, with diffs such as this.  Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a third option besides delete a possibly misleading redirect and keeping it to preserve its edit history: just move it to a different title that won't give the false impression the nominator is concerned about, something like Last living Titanic survivors. postdlf (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that option, but purely on editorial grounds (see next sentence), not on legal grounds; it will not create any copyright problems, so it's definitely acceptable. Editorial grounds: I disagree with the idea that these redirects are misleading, and like List of surviving veterans of World War I (also a redirect), they reflect the previous article.  Please see WP:RFD point 4: You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect.  Both redirects have been in existence for several years, and "survivors" was an article; although they have few links today (see Articles for deletion/Surviving veterans of the First World War and In the news/Candidates/May 2006 for the two relevant ones), they have numerous links in old revisions of pages.  Deleting these redirects will cause linkrot and reduce the quality of old revisions of articles.  Just about the only place someone's going to see "Living Titanic survivors" is in older documents from when some were still alive, and if they end up seeing it in a current document, the link will take them to a page that documents everyone's deaths: it definitively says that there aren't any.  This is a big difference from the WP:RFD#KEEP "The redirect might cause confusion" situation: it talks about a simple error, not a situation that most definitely was correct in the very recent past.  Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly think they're misleading either and would be fine with them staying as is. My point was just that even assuming the nominator is correct that they are misleading, it's still not necessary to delete outright nor to keep at that title just to preserve the edit history. postdlf (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Comment Titanic survivors is also being listed, see #Titanic survivors -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - a normal way to deal with such history problems is to move the article to a subpage of Talk:RMS Titanic eg Talk:RMS Titanic/Living Titanic Survivors, suppressing the redirect, and then linking from the talk page. Whatever procedure is adopted this redirect cannot be deleted without preserving the history in some form because it would breach our CC licence by removing attribution. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Number   5  7  11:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Comment There is agreement that the second redirect should not be deleted, but agreement is needed on what to do with it. Number   5  7  11:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I have a good algorythm for deletion path:
 * delete Titanic survivors (no useful edit history),
 * move without redirect Living Titanic survivors to Titanic survivors.
 * This approach solves the copyright issues without retaining useless page titles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This isn't actually harmful in any way, there is no reason to delete, but possible real harm from killing external links to it. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget all to Passengers of the RMS Titanic, which is closest to what our readers are looking for. For one thing, it makes clear that there are no longer any survivors, which some of our readers might not be sure about. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget all to Passengers of the RMS Titanic - good pragmatic solution that covers all bases. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.