Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 25

February 25
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 25, 2017.

Gulf of Policastro
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 11%23Gulf of Policastro

A1 Capricorni
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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) 23:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A1 Capricorni → alpha1 Capricorni (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A1_Capricorni&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * A2 Capricorni → alpha2 Capricorni (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A2_Capricorni&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

These are not valid abbreviations or synonyms for the components of alpha Capricorni. A Capricorni is an entirely different star. Since A Capricorni is single, these redirects should be deleted to avoid confusion. Lithopsian (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Inappropriate redirect. Praemonitus (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Disambiguate. A is the correct uppercase form of α, so this is a simple change of capitalisation. They're plausible search terms, so is best served by a disambiguation page listing α1 Cap, α2 Cap and A Cap. Modest Genius talk 14:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Α (upper-case α) and A (upper-case a) are different characters although they look almost identical in most fonts. Thus Α1 Capricorni and A1 Capricorni are different articles (the confusion is exacerbated because Wikipedia usually does not respect the tag for redirects and still shows the first letter as uppercase). The redirect being discussed here is A1 Capricorni, which does not start with an upper-case α. Greek and latin letter Bayer designations for stars are not synonyms and should not be redirects to eachother. In this case, A Capricorni and α Capricorni are two different stars and we shouldn't have redirects crossing between them. Lithopsian (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it's a plausible rendering since it's a simple case of capitalization and/or transliteration. However, the disambiguate argument confuses me as I don't see other usage of this term. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

Games 4 windows live
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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. 00:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Games 4 windows live → Games for Windows – Live (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Games_4_windows_live&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Games 4 windows live. This deserves deletion. The redirect is not linked to anywhere, and along with that, uses incorrect capitalization, and uses "4" instead of For. It does not seem useful at all. Creeperparty568 ~ Cool Guy (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note I've fixed the formatting of this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Games for Windows Live already exists. The "4" version is not part of the official name, even as shorthand. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.

Supplementary question
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Question time. This could absolutely be converted to an article whenever anyone chooses. In the meantime, supplementary questions are mentioned in the context of multiple countries at Question time, so the redirect will be helpful to readers. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Supplementary question → Prime Minister's Questions (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supplementary_question&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

The use of the redirect in the target article (it is mentioned a few times) makes the term not an official alternative name or subtopic of the target article. In fact, whenever the term "supplementary question" is used in the target article, the phrase could be replaced with "additional question" and the meaning would be the same. With that being said, unless the term in the redirect can be defined, the redirect is vague and is not exclusive to any part of its current target. Steel1943 (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Retarget to Question time as more general, covering use of supplementary questions in multiple countries. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Supplementary question has a specific meaning in the UK Prime Ministers Question's, namely that while the initial question must be provided in advance, the supplementary is not and need not be about the same topic - thus requiring the Prime Minister to provide an answer "off the cuff". Thus supplementary questions are a major tactic for HM Opposition to try to embarrass HM Government and contain the real substance while the initial question will often be something innocuous. I'm not sure if other Parliaments follow this scheme. Pretzelpaws (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is rare...four participants and four different suggestions. Some more opinions to help break this stalemate would be helpful.
 * Disambiguate The term is also used in Canada's parliament and is mentioned in Question Period which is about House of Commons Oral Questions in Canada. (If disambiguate is the closing decision I'm happy to do it if you ping me)  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget to 'Question time' since that general article can describe things in context, with the U.K. system having its own quirks as well as multiple similarities to other nation's policies. This seems to be the most helpful option. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Write a stubby article, with an appropriate collection of See Also's. Question time includes legislatures which AFAIK do not allow supplementaries. (Is that suggestion #5?)
 * Notes. (1) The expression used in the UK Parliament is specifically "supplementary question" (often called just a "supplementary"), never "additional question". (2) In UK, any minister can be asked a supplementary, not just the PM (though ones to others must stick to the original topic). Links to parliament.uk 1 2. Narky Blert (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

Fort Hamilton Parkway (version 2)
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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. 00:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Fort Hamilton Parkway (version 2) → Fort Hamilton Parkway (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Hamilton_Parkway_(version_2)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I don't get how this redirect came about or what "Version 2" means. The target article already talks about the street sufficiently and "Version 2" has no relevance, so it is unlikely a useful search term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.76.31 (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2017‎
 * Delete since the edit history that was previously at this title has now been moved to Fort Hamilton Parkway (New York City). Steel1943  (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a plausible search term. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - irrelevant search term.  Dr Strauss   talk  14:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC) 14:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unlikely search term. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 21:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - We don't need to keep this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not a formal title for the parkway. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.