Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 20

August 20
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 20, 2018.

Regular Octogon
 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  . ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 01:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Regular Octogon → Octagon (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regular_Octogon&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Regular octagon and Regular Octogon each redirect to Octagon, but neither Regular octogon nor Regular Octagon do. If it's plausible for the second word to be capitalized, shouldn't Regular Octagon redirect to Octagon? If octagon→octogon is a plausible misspelling, shouldn't Regular octogon redirect to Octagon? Unless both are plausible, the redirect from Regular Octogon should be deleted. However, I do not think that action should be taken without feedback from the community amount how plausible each is (although when trying to get to the page, I typed "Regular octogon" the first time). Ideally, whether or not the octagon→octogon misspelling should have a redirect and whether or not the versions where the second word is capitalized should have a redirect should be decided independently of each other, which results in four possible outcomes: Because the section title of the target neither uses the misspelling nor capitalizes the second word, I think that Regular octogon can be assumed to be the status quo, so the plausibility of spelling octagon correctly and lowercasing the second word do not have to be questioned or debated. I personally think that both the misspelling and the capitalization of the second word are plausible, but one opinion does not constitute consensus. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 23:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither the misspelling nor the capitalization of the second word are plausible: The redirect at Regular Octogon is deleted.
 * The misspelling is plausible, but the capitalization of the second word is implausible: The redirect at Regular Octogon is deleted, and a redirect is created at Regular octogon.
 * The the capitalization of the second word is plausible, but the misspelling is implausible: The redirect at Regular Octogon is deleted, and a redirect is created at Regular Octagon.
 * Both the misspelling and the capitalization of the second word are plausible: Redirects are created at Regular octogon and Regular Octagon, and the redirect at Regular Octogon stays.


 * Delete for the somewhat weak WP:RTYPO (two or more corrections: octogon and then the caps). No media with this particular title or spelling. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , please also specify whether or not you think that redirects at Regular octogon or Regular Octagon should be created. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 03:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regular Octagon goes to Regular octagon in search, and the only time it is in caps is for titles of papers, which wouldn't be linked like that anyway. I have yet to see any newspapers, journal articles, or books that use "regular octogon" as an alternative spelling, but creating ones that are just one correction away are acceptable. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. A plausible typo and one that does no harm – it's unlikely that the reader who searches for this is looking for anything other than the content at the target. Discussing whether a redirect that doesn't currently exist ought to be created is really outside of the remit of RfD: if someone wants to create Regular octogon or Regular Octagon, they're free to do so. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment A gbook search reveals usage of this spelling in books dating back to circa. 1875, so I guess it is somewhat plausible. Still can't make up my mind about this redirect, though. But I guess regular octogon could be created. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arms & Hearts. Certainly "octogon" for "octagon" is a spelling mistake I make frequently and the Octogon redirect has received over 600 views so far this year. The capitalised terms are harmless redirects from other capitalisation. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as a common spelling mistakes -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:09, 27 August 2018 (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.

Chinese Korea
 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 History of Sino-Korean relations. Seems reasonable per below.  Helps that the current target is mentioned there as well. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 01:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Chinese Korea → Four Commanderies of Han (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Korea&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Could not find usage referring to the present target, most of the results I could find were partial title matches in the form of Chinese, Korea. Retargeting to Chinese Korean is a possibility. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Maybe retarget to History of Sino-Korean relations, which has information on multiple diplomatic relationships, territories, etc. that could be considered "Chinese Korea". Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete given the absence of this term in reliable printed sources, this is basically WP:OR. All GBooks hits are coincidental fragments of larger phrases like "Chinese Korea expert" (i.e. a Korea expert who is Chinese, not an expert on something called "Chinese Korea") or typos/OCR errors. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Prefer retarget History of Sino-Korean relations (1st choice), delete (2nd choice). When I read "Chinese Korea" I assumed it would refer to one of the several periods in history when the state that ruled what is now Korea was a vassal state of the state that ruled what is now China. Deryck C. 16:09, 27 August 2018 (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 face fish
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 28%23Human face fish

Condescendence
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 28%23Condescendence

County Championship Division One Current Table
 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 soft delete  as unopposed. Deryck C. 16:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * County Championship Division One Current Table → 2013 County Championship (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=County_Championship_Division_One_Current_Table&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I don't see why this redirect is necessary and needs to redirect to 2013 County Championship. It seems to be ambiguous and there is no need for this redirect in any way. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2018 (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.

7201
 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  . ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 01:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 7201 → Nissan (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7201&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

A number to a company. Not very likely, a person looking to trade Nissan stocks would be searching for the company instead of a number. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  16:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep pending broader discussion A WP user in Japan is very likely to use the number to search, since that is how companies are defined on the Tokyo Stock Exchange (and the reason we have others such as 2317, 3382, 4503, 6586, 6758, 7011, etc.). Think of it like INTC in the United States.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Even in the unlikely event it's unambiguous at the moment on Wikipedia, I doubt it's that helpful. Unless they're on a single-country website (which Wikipedia definitely is not), people almost always include the exchange code too when they're looking up things by stock code, like Reuters-style 7201.T or Bloomberg-style TYO:7201, since multiple exchanges around the world use four-digit numeric codes. The 3382 example demonstrates why people avoid the bare numbers: that's also the code for Tianjin Port Development on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (I've just disambiguated it). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per UnitedStatesian. Probably not a very likely search term, and only mentioned in the infobox at the target, but I can't find anything else discussed in any article that this could refer to. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep until we can find a competing primary topic (or somebody finds something worthwhile about the property of the integer). Deryck C. 16:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per UnitedStatesian. a plausible keyword in my opinion. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:11, 27 August 2018 (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.