Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 26

June 26

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 26, 2015.

Pubic transportation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 6#Pubic transportation

Forms

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 Form. @SimonTrew: It'd be great if you can have a look through the existing incoming links. Der yck C. 15:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forms → Substantial form (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

where should this go? 76.120.162.73 (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Form. Generic term; disambiguation page lists many possible targets. Ivanvector (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Form per Ivanvector --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Form as a {{R from plural}} -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Form as above. Si Trew (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WARNING. It does have about 30 internal links in article space. As part of closing, we should to go through them (I'm happy to do so if {{ping}}ed at the time). I imagine a few are already redirecting to the wrong place (e.g. Oak Tree Business Systems, Inc. (Oak Tree) – itself a rather pecular title – does). Si Trew (talk) 18:00, 29 June 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.

Electoral Reform Services

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. It's been demonstrated that the organizations are connected, and the section redirect should make the relationship fairly clear. A standalone article on Electoral Reform Services might still be appropriate. --BDD (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral Reform Services → Electoral Reform Society (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Very misleading. The Electoral Reform Society has nothing to do with Electoral Reform Services. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 15:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, potentially per WP:REDLINK. Electoral Reform Services is a UK company providing election-related services; they don't seem to be an organization that has much interest in electoral reform despite their name, and they are most certainly not the Electoral Reform Society. Ivanvector (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost by definition they have no interest in electoral reform: it's a separation of concerns that the Society does the "electoral reform" bit and the company does the "services" bit. Actually I think my IET members' ballot and my Nationwide Building Society members' ballot are both done by them, they do quite a lot of that kind of thing. Si Trew (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:REDLINK. Actually there is a link, per [1] "The Electoral Reform Society, which was established in 1884 as an autonomous campaigning organisation with no shareholders, originally set up Electoral Reform Services Limited in the mid-1980s to run ballots and elections and to provide related services. The Society still holds a minority shareholding in the Company and is funded by a dividend but Electoral Reform Services has complete financial and operational independence from the Society or any other organisation." This information should be on both articles, and they should be linked by "not to be confused with" hatnotes, but the redirect is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Refine to section. It is used by a WP:RS, in the FT, once:

Kavanagh, Michael (29 June 2010). "All in a day's work for Electoral Reform Services". Financial Times. Retrieved 29 June 2015.

as well as plenty of cross-links at the websites of both the Electoral Reform Society and Electoral Reform Services. I don't see how User:Wilbysuffolk comes to the conclusion they are not related. It's mentioned at the target. Without prejudice, I'm marking it as {{R to section}}, to section Electoral_Reform_Society#Related_organisations for now. Si Trew (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though no longer simply a subsidiary - the society now only has a minority stake in the company, it is simply untrue that the two have nothing to do with each other. Not all spinoff organisations are independently notable, and if we don't have articles on them then a redirect is the next best thing. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:28, 5 July 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.

模糊

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. The Magic Whip constitutes a connection between this Chinese form and Blur, though I think Deryck is correct that this should be explicitly mentioned somewhere. If it's covered better at the Magic Whip article, retargeting there might be appropriate. --BDD (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

模糊 → Blur (band) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ambigous and unneeded redirect. Also WP:FORRED. GZWDer (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED per nom. Ivanvector (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ivanvector and WP:FORRED. This redirect is a Chinese redirect. Even though it translates to "Blur," we don't usually create redirects in other languages unless there's a connection between the language and the target. This redirect would be appropriate if there is a Chinese band called Blur, but the band Blur is an English band, so there's no connection between it and Chinese. SONIC678 |Let’s hang out here 17:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Chinese article seems to suggest it's a legitimate name for it, but the disambiguation page doesn't mention it. This could be a literal translation rather than the band's actual Chinese name. Adam9007 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Adam9007: zh:模糊 → zh:含糊 is a stub on the concept of "vagueness", not a disambiguation page. I've added a hatnote for disambiguation. Deryck C. 12:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you're right; I don't know why I thought it was a disambiguation (the style?). But the point remains; until you added the hatnote, it redirected to a page that had no mention of it, seemingly a totally different subject. Adam9007 (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to The Magic Whip, which actually uses this term, and is featured on the album cover art -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this redirect, i can’t see how it could possibly be “ambiguous and unneeded”. The cover of their latest album quite clearly states it to be “魔鞭” by the band “模糊”. That you can’t read the script is rather irrelevant. I could imagine someone who does know Chinese searching for this after seeing the cover. ï¿½ (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (1st choice) or retarget (2nd choice) to The Magic Whip. That 模糊魔鞭 is on the album cover is definitive proof of specific affinity between this Chinese-language phrase and the band, so WP:FORRED clearly doesn't apply. zh.wp has accepted 模糊 as a correct Chinese name of the band (it was added in Feb 2015 and never reverted) so I would prefer to keep the redirect as is. Der yck C. 17:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deryck. I would even go a step further and say that this should be mentioned somewhere at that article, perhaps in The Magic Whip section? -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:01, 30 June 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.

SCOTUScare

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 5#SCOTUScare

👾

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 5#👾