< October 29
October 31 >

October 30

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 30, 2015.

APPLE

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 apple (disambiguation) (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Apple (disambiguation). The current target is one of some huge number of comsats launched in 1981, nothing really special about it except maybe to students of Indian aerospace history, and it only lived two years. Seems to get on the order of 30 hits/day or a little more (and there's no way to tell how many of those views were looking for apple). Should not take primary-topic status over just-plain-apple with the caps lock on. Trovatore (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also the stats tool seems to be returning results for apple, at least for me. I've posted at WP:VPT about it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so that it doesn't prejudice this discussion, I have bypassed the extant links to the redirect so that they point to the satellite article directly. Apparently the redirect is transcluded on a page, but I can't figure that out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just disagree with you about the all-caps thing. I think a great many users do not expect our article titles to be case-sensitive, and in many ways, it would be better if they were not case-sensitive. We should try hard to avoid titles that differ only in case, though pointing alternative-case redirects to a disambig page is a reasonable compromise.
In this case, the satellite is notable in the sense that there is literature about it, but probably hardly anyone cares much about it, even the people who worked on it, who have moved on to bigger and better things. It is not of remotely comparable notability to the fruit. People who search for the fruit in all-caps are not really making a "mistake" except in the sense that they don't understand the nuances of Wikipedia's UI, so I don't think we should discount their searches on that basis. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's considered a transclusion? I was looking for ((APPLE)). I guess that will resolve itself. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

47th state of the union

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 read the result of the previous RfD as "don't take action as a group, please nominate individually" so I consider this discussion a fresh RfD without a binding precedent.) Deryck C. 21:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

By my count, Andrew Jackson's Seventh State of the Union Address was the 47th State of the Union. New Mexico was the 47th state in the union, or to be admitted to the union. Given that the speech (actually, a written message) is just covered on Wikisource, I think this redirect is more trouble than it's worth. BDD (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think First State of the Union could certainly refer to the 1790 State of the Union Address. I'll see how this goes before I really consider creating it, though. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the original 13 are enumerated in the order that they signed the American Declaration of Independence, others are enumerated in the order they joined the Union. I was being deliberately obtuse. Si Trew (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Picki u dusa

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 Deleted speedily, because given the pattern, there's no doubt in my mind that it was intended as an insult. (Novel way of abuse, that.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per criteria 3 (offensive), 5 (makes no sense), 8 (obscure, from a language unrelated to the target page, unlikely to be useful). Reasoning: the same user had the idea to redirect Klosari to Greeks (meaning tramps according to wikt:klošar) and Picki u dusa to Greece (wikt:pička, pl. pički, is also a vulgar term). Speedy deletion was denied because administrators were not sure if this is an attack or not. I say that either it is an attack, and should be deleted, or it doesn't make any sense, and should be deleted anyway. Place Clichy (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects Serbia, Croatia and Czech Republic notified, in order to have some linguistic background. Place Clichy (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: if you get no joy there, I can ask my Serbian, Croatian and Czech friends (not online friends, real life friends, I do have a few) to see what they think. I don't speak any of these languages myself. Si Trew (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: If you can confirm through your friends that this is indeed, or not, some sort of slur, that would definitely help and speed things up. Place Clichy (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, over the weekend. They are not linguists as such, but all degree educated and can even understand my gorblimey English. Si Trew (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it looks more like Romanian to me, of which I speak little but can understand a little, but Romanian Wikipedia is blind to it too. Si Trew (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel: Thank for that, I hadn't had a chance to look at the reasons for decline, but just assumed you had good reason. Anything at all contentious should be declined, so you did the right thing. (Just don't go doing it to my G6s!) Si Trew (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

207 in film

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 deleted by Sadads. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I understand that film didn't exist in 207, but I'm worried about someone being puzzled if this appears in their searches for the year 207 (and who knows? someone might actually think film existed then...) I think the potential harm outweighs its utility as a typo: it's in the realm of implausibility, pretty much getting noise hits. -- Tavix (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, it's rather ambiguous on whether it means year in film or film in year. Si Trew (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Bilbo: en hobbits äventyr

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 items 2 and 6, retarget the rest to Translation of The Lord of the Rings into Swedish. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. I'm cleaning up some Swedish redirects created by EliasAlucard that don't have any connection with Swedish. -- Tavix (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Nintendo Revolution 2

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. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the "Nintendo Revolution" is the Wii, then wouldn't the "Nintendo Revolution 2" logically be it's successor, the Wii U? Wait, the "Wii U" has never actually been called that? Oh, just delete it then. -- Tavix (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

NRev

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. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for "NRev" didn't turn up any results related to the Wii, leading me to believe this could be confusing. I understand that it's technically an abbreviation for "Nintendo Revolution," but since that was a code name, it's utility in this case is questionable. It was also never known by this abbreviation, from what I can tell. -- Tavix (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sticking it into gsearch, I get a lot of stuff about revolutions per minute, which is no surprise to me, although it is sorta inaccurate, most of the results are from EN:WP as "number of revolutions", which is what I would expect this abbreviation to stand for (not revs over time, which is Hertz or rpm → Revolutions per minute or cycles per second → Cycle per second etc.) The question is how does gsearch jump from NRev to those articles when they are not mentioned there, I haven't figured that out yet, but when short of space on a screen or dial, NRev or N Rev or N.Rev or N. Rev I think is a fairly standard abbreviation for "number of cycles/revolutions", e.g. an electricity meter counts thus, not over time but just how many cycles the little disc has rotated.
In short, I am a bit WP:SURPRISEd that it don't go to Revolutions per minute, when the gsearch brings this up topmost, with variants ensuing, without it being at any of the targets. Si Trew (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Columbine conspiracies

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. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbine conspiracy theories and the fact that the target doesn't list any conspiracies. -- Tavix (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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