Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 27

July 27
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 27, 2017.

Human equality
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 12%23Human equality

Windows 9
 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 keep  .  (non-admin closure)  f  e  minist  02:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Windows 9 → Windows 10 (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_9&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Could also refer to Windows 9x  Flow 234 (Nina)   talk  21:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This original reason of why I created this redirect.... Rumors from a Microsoft employee suggests that Microsoft investigated using "Windows 9" as a product name for what is now "Windows 10", but during ALPHA testing they discovered that some flawed Windows programs considered any Windows version that started with a "9" to be either Windows 95 or 98, thus causing the program to do weird things. Still, the Windows 10 article does list another reason at "Windows_10", of which "Windows 9" text is clearly shown in this section, thus a reasonable reason of why this redirect exists.  Also, at the top of "Windows 9x" it states something about "Windows 9" too.   https://techreport.com/news/27144/this-might-be-why-windows-10-isnt-called-windows-9  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 22:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per above. Rumors are a bit WP:CBALL, and now this is in the past. I don't see any need to keep this as a redirect. + m t  23:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Any RS referring to Windows 9 have been well and truly corrected by now. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as Windows 10 follows Windows 8 so some users unfamiliar with it might still have look for it. Also WP:CRYSTAL 🔮 on the fact that It's common knowledge right now, that doesn't mean that It's common knowledge forever. --2405:4800:148C:91A0:9C17:24EB:CA4B:645D (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also note that the skip was intentional by Microsoft so there might still be plenty of users who are confused by it. --2405:4800:148C:91A0:9C17:24EB:CA4B:645D (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The target article (Windows 10) already discusses the subject of "Windows 9". For plausible typos we have hatnotes. Just think about it: If we retarget this to "Windows 9x" per nomination, we must also put a hotnote on the top of it that says "Windows 9 redirects here, despite the fact that there is no info about it here. For Windows 9, see Windows 10." I think this borderlines on reader harassment. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The announcements section of the article discusses the name and explicitly states that Microsoft skipped 9 and went straight to 10. This is exactly what readers are looking for as far as Windows 9 not existing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as Windows 10 does cover why it wasn't named Windows 9. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or at the very least redirect to something better. This is a plausible search term--why would you want to make it a redlink leading nowhere? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:07, 31 July 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.

Main-Page-(text-only)
 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  .  -- Tavix  ( talk ) 16:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Main-Page-(text-only) → Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (text only) (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main-Page-(text-only)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Cross-namespace redirect. KMF (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:26, 27 July 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.

Main page (text only)
 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  .  -- Tavix  ( talk ) 16:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Main page (text only) → Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (text only) (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_page_(text_only)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Cross-namespace redirect. KMF (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. There's nothing wrong with the redirect being cross-namespace as it goes to a page meant for end-users. However, I feel its title is a bit misleading: it leads me to expect a text-only version of the main page as it appears on the day, but what I get instead is a generic main page without any of the daily changing content. – Uanfala 07:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - The somewhat misleading title makes me feel like this should be deleted, although I've no strong opinions on the matter. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uanfala, unless someone can find a current text-only version of the Main Page. Without that, we don't have what the typist seeks.  Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The cross-namespace "problem" here is caused by Main Page being in the wrong namespace (some saner Wikipedias have moved it to Project: space ages ago). As an alternative version of the main page, the redirect is titled ok. In analogy to the silly location of Main Page, we could reverse the redirect, but we should rather stop pretending our main page is an article. —Kusma (t·c) 22:11, 29 July 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.

Human disturbance
 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  . I think we're heading towards a rough consensus along the line of thought that it would be nice if this title pointed somewhere, but deletion wouldn't be too bad a deal given what we had got. Deryck C. 11:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Human disturbance → Human impact on the environment (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_disturbance&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Vague, humans can disturb other things besides Earth's environment. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But give us other WP articles that discuss those possibilities. Unless there aren't any, I would assume that whatever links here is also expected to silently imply ...environment. -- Kku (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Superficial survey shows that most articles containing the lemma refer to the current meaning. I could also envision a redirect to disturbance (ecology) -- Kku (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - I don't think that the term "human disturbance" is specific enough to this target. I'm not sure what is meant by someone typing this into a search box. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete as vague. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep term is used a lot in news articles and journals, and seem to refer to this article. Disturbance (ecology) can be added as a See also. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 11:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or retarget to Anthropogenic hazard or Human impact on the environment. I'm to targeting → Disturbance (ecology) because we have human–specific targets that are closer to the meaning of the redirect title. Not opposed to deletion.  &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 20:03, 27 July 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.

List of Apple Software
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 15%23List of Apple Software

Ass (insult)
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 12%23Ass (insult)

2Yoon/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  ; deleted by Anthony Appleyard.  Steel1943  (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


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

This redirect's history is nothing but a series of redirects to different articles while it was at the title 2Yoon. I'm bringing this to discussion since a request for G6 speedy deletion was rejected in December 2013, the fourth-to-most-recent edit. Steel1943 (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Must be a draft page or something. Doesn't fit any current scheme of subpages. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 06:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , could you please explain what's happening with this redirect? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At 06:10, 28 December 2013 I obeyed a move request (2YOON to 2Yoon as "WP:ALLCAPS; name is not an acronym.") listed by Raykyogrou0 at 04:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC) in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=588021013 (an old edit of Requested moves/Technical requests). Before that, I moved the old pre-existing page 2Yoon aside to 2Yoon/version 2 to avoid the incoming page sitting over an unrelated deleted edit history. As 2Yoon/version 2 is only redirects, may as well delete it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , so, it sounds like you could have use db-move to have it speedy deleted as it was blocking a move? If so, I don't see much reason we couldn't speedy delete now. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have deleted 2Yoon/version 2. (I do not trust a page sitting over an unrelated deleted edit history, particularly if the two are WP:Parallel histories, as this is too liable to an accident if the page must be temporarily deleted.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:09, 31 July 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.

2019 Asian Games
 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 keep  .  (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 09:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 2019 Asian Games → 2018 Asian Games (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Asian_Games&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Target not planned to occur in 2019, per the target's title. In effect, this redirect is WP:CRYSTAL. Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 06:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The 2018 Asian Games were originally scheduled to to take place in 2019, so a lot of sources from before the Games were moved would call this event the "2019 Asian Games". The article explains this, so I don't think it'd be confusing. Also note there's several incoming links. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per . Indonesia is hosting, so the Games had to be rescheduled so they wouldn't conflict with the 2019 Indonesian presidential election. This is explained in the lead of the target article. Keeping this redirect would be very useful to readers who still think that the Games will be in 2019.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 19:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I now see the "2019" in the lead paragraph. I'd withdraw this WP:BOLDly, but I can't do that due to the "delete" vote present. Steel1943  (talk) 20:56, 27 July 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.