Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 29

October 29
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 29, 2014.

Flight company



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Flight company → Airline (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Doesn't necessarily mean the same thing, it could refer to a travel agency, etc. - TheChampionMan1234 22:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Or possibly a company that makes planes.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, as "plane" and "flight" don't necessarily mean the same thing either, I see no need for a dabpage at this stage. - TheChampionMan1234 02:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ...or who make staircases or stabilizers for darts, or a group of those escaping... Delete per Champ. Si Trew (talk) 07:39, 30 October 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.

Švýcarsko



 * 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. This has been relisted once with the outcome of that being only a muddying of the waters by Si Trew contradicting his earlier !vote without striking either, so I don't think a further relisting will help here. I find Wily D's response to Si's second comment a good refutation, but with no further responses, it isn't enough for me to call this a consensus for keeping. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


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

No particular affinity for Czech. - TheChampionMan1234 23:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC) *Delete per Champ. Si Trew (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - direct readers to the content they're looking for. No rationale has been presented for deletion. Wily D  09:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak retarget to Bohemian Switzerland, which does have an affinity to Czech, and to which redirects. As for a rationale for deletion: not mentioned at existing target. Czech users can find an article at cz:Švýcarsko if they want it. WP:NOT a (translation) dictionary. Si Trew (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bohemian Switzerland is obviously an inappropriate retarget, since there's ~0% chance that that's what the reader is looking for. We're trying to write an encyclopaedia here, and leading readers to the content they're looking for is critical to making that worthwhile, so please keep it in mind. Wily D  10:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't know why User:WilyD thinks it's "obviously inappropriate" to suggest (weakly) a Czech language term to somewhere in the Czech Republic that is known as "Switzerland". But since it fails on WP:ENGLISH, WP:RFD #8, and WP:NOTDICT not a phrasebook, let it go. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Something you seem to have lost sight of.  Deliberating directing users away from the information they're looking for fails the whole purpose of an encyclopaedia. Wily D  11:09, 3 November 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.

Boeing 797



 * 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 Blended wing body. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Boeing 797 → Boeing Yellowstone Project (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Name not mentioned it target. - TheChampionMan1234 09:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget. Boeing 797 hoax → Blended_wing_body and so should this: the hoax is documented there with sources that call it the Boeing 797 &mdash; I've added '("Boeing 797")' into the article text and caption. Si Trew (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * retarget per Si Trew. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Si Trew-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not trying to predict the future, but it's nearly certain that Boeing will have a jetliner called 797, and that it will be the result of the Yellowstone Project. If redirected, there would definitely need to be a hatnote. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Copied from my talk page'':


 * === Boeing 797 hoax reg ===
 * Hi SimonTrew


 * Please visit the talk page of Boeing X-48 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boeing_X-48) to see the notability of the Boeing 797 hoax.


 * Wikipedia is a very important source of information for people, today. Removing tiny bits of information does not help educate people. At the time of creating that section, I visited wikipedia searching for info on the Boeing 797. failing to find anything, i resorted to the rest of the net. at the end, i managed to collate quite a bit of info including the exact issue from which the image was sourced.


 * the whole point of wikipedia is to educate people, not to hide info. for your info, this design is based on BWB-450 on which the X-48A and subsequently B & C are based. in short, this render was inspired from an actual physical concept model preceding X-48. also fyi, the BWB-450 was supposed to be a 450 passenger aircraft BWB concept but when the design was carried over to X-48, it was decided to scrap the passenger part for the time being with more focus on military applications like air-refuelling.


 * officially, there is no talk by boeing or nasa to bring in such planes to the commercial sector in the imminent future. and this is where the 797 hoax has to be mentioned and cleared.


 * I am open to further discussion but as a hoax, it is still quite notable. I would like to revert this by the weekend, if possible.


 * Perhaps we can arrange a discussion on the Talk page of Blended Wing Body to reword the info a bit - however, it is important that people are educated about this hoax. We want wikipedia to be a source of reliable knowledge, right? If nothing is available here, the average person will resort to a questionable blog and think the info there is correct.


 * Till the date a Boeing 797 is truly released & a wiki page created for it, this section needs a home under the Blended Wing Body page. --Krishvanth (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But I thought we were having a discussion, here at RfD. think I made what I considered a minor edit to knock a cap in line with the running text, but by all means revert that if you don't like it. Are you suggesting a then? I think the salient point is whether the aircraft spec or the hoax itself is the more likely desired target. Si Trew (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Si Trew, thanks for opening this issue here. Sorry about the late reply, I've been a bit occupied with other things. I simply thought of calling recent editors to the Boeing 797 hoax section for a discussion. Looks like there are a couple of people on a deleting spree out there. Their last 500 edits consist of mostly deletions and nothing else. No point in fighting with them pointlessly. Too bad there's no "Information Deleter" or "Niggler" award in wikipedia. We've all got better things to do and I suppose we can resume doing them instead of wasting time here purposelessly. Btw, this page is interesting. Haven't actively done edits of late (due to the bother of having to raise consensus etc. despite giving sufficient & reliable cites) so its the first time I've seen this (I think). Gives a nice common area for discussion (instead of flooding each others' talk pages) esp. when a page does not exist yet. Nice. Krishvanth (talk) 03:14, 29 November 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.

Jacob's Ladder (ropes course)



 * 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 Ropes course. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Jacob's Ladder (ropes course) → Jacob& (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Request for deletion. Jacob's Ladder, the ropes course obstacle has no relation to the religious concept of "Jacob's Ladder" besides the name it shares. There is no mention of the ropes course obstacle in the article and there is no need for it to be mentioned in the religious article - all the things with named derived from "Jacob's Ladder" appear in the disambiguation page which is sufficient. User:Cdantonio 14:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: not mentioned at target. Remove from the DAB page at Jacob's Ladder (disambiguation) per WP:DABPIPE.


 * Looking at the links at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climbing/Archive 1 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative education, it seems a previous article of this name was WP:PRODded on 15 November 2010 for failure to meet WP:V and WP:N, and presumably it was deleted (along with any discussion of it: can an admin retrieve it?); this redirect was created a year later, on 27 November 2011. Si Trew (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts, retarget to Ropes course, which mentions Jacob's ladder (nautical) piped as "Jacob's Ladder". Probably we need a slight reword at the DAB, since the proposed target says it may be made of ropes or of logs of ascending height. Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I've had a look at the last version of the article, it was one unreferenced paragraph detailing what looks very like a team building exercise:
 * "A Jacob's ladder rope course is a team climbing exercise using a structure of eight logs suspended above one another by ropes. The logs are spaced progressively farther apart with the highest log 60 feet above the ground, so that as the team climbs the structure, each log is more difficult to climb than the last. The 'ladder' of logs tends to swing, and team members are not permitted to touch the side wires.  The belay or safety rope of each climber is held by one of their team mates on the ground so the exercise calls for coordination, attention of the people on the ladder, and excellent communication.  The course is also designed to build rapport and trust between team members."


 * I haven't looked for sources but I would be very surprised if that could ever meet WP:N (the original version was even a borderline A1 speedy in my opinion), so I too favour deletion and removal from the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That quote seems lifted directly from here:
 * Other sources:
 * One is a supplier, three are activity-training organisations, one a charity, one a part of a university, and one a book by a theologian (who does relate it back to the religious meaning): whether they are WP:RS is debatable, but they would seem to help establish WP:N. All above have reasonably good (if varying) definitions of what one is, often with photos. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One is a supplier, three are activity-training organisations, one a charity, one a part of a university, and one a book by a theologian (who does relate it back to the religious meaning): whether they are WP:RS is debatable, but they would seem to help establish WP:N. All above have reasonably good (if varying) definitions of what one is, often with photos. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One is a supplier, three are activity-training organisations, one a charity, one a part of a university, and one a book by a theologian (who does relate it back to the religious meaning): whether they are WP:RS is debatable, but they would seem to help establish WP:N. All above have reasonably good (if varying) definitions of what one is, often with photos. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One is a supplier, three are activity-training organisations, one a charity, one a part of a university, and one a book by a theologian (who does relate it back to the religious meaning): whether they are WP:RS is debatable, but they would seem to help establish WP:N. All above have reasonably good (if varying) definitions of what one is, often with photos. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One is a supplier, three are activity-training organisations, one a charity, one a part of a university, and one a book by a theologian (who does relate it back to the religious meaning): whether they are WP:RS is debatable, but they would seem to help establish WP:N. All above have reasonably good (if varying) definitions of what one is, often with photos. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One is a supplier, three are activity-training organisations, one a charity, one a part of a university, and one a book by a theologian (who does relate it back to the religious meaning): whether they are WP:RS is debatable, but they would seem to help establish WP:N. All above have reasonably good (if varying) definitions of what one is, often with photos. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One is a supplier, three are activity-training organisations, one a charity, one a part of a university, and one a book by a theologian (who does relate it back to the religious meaning): whether they are WP:RS is debatable, but they would seem to help establish WP:N. All above have reasonably good (if varying) definitions of what one is, often with photos. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One is a supplier, three are activity-training organisations, one a charity, one a part of a university, and one a book by a theologian (who does relate it back to the religious meaning): whether they are WP:RS is debatable, but they would seem to help establish WP:N. All above have reasonably good (if varying) definitions of what one is, often with photos. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I note also that Jacobs ladder → Jacob's Ladder (disambiguation) but Jacobs Ladder and Jacob's ladder → Jacob's Ladder. WP:SMALLDETAILS (aka WP:DIFFPUNCT and WP:DIFFCAPS) is in play here, and maybe WP:NCCAPS. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 30 October 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.