Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 28

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

July 28

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 28, 2016.

Stars In Stereo

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 Article moved over redirect. See
WP:RM in future. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Basically, despite it having a target at present, it has

Stars in Stereo (band) and Stars in Stereo (album), both of which have articles, and are crosslinked appropriately to each other. MSJapan (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2016 (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.

Difficulty of engagement

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 longer in scope. The original author has overwritten the redirect with an article, so it's no longer within RfD's scope. This closure is without prejudice to an AfD of the article if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the target may be a specific use of the term, it is not a likely meaning for most usages of this vague and general term Toddst1 (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2016 (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.

Dobbing

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 Glossary of cricket terms#D and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) This doesn't make sense to me. "Dobbing" is used in the article, but I feel like the "dobbing" format it's referring to would be any bingo game that is marked with a pen/marker. Therefore, it wouldn't be specific to this specific game show, and I don't think the word has any affinity with bingo either. -- Tavix (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak retarget "Dobbing" to Glossary of cricket terms#D where it has an (unsourced) entry. It's also a surname, but we don't have an article about any of the people who have it, the closest being Dressed Like Wolves but that article really doesn't feel notable (although I haven't investigated in detail).Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete "Dobbed". The only use in mainspace is four instance of the past tense of "dob" in the British slang sense, and quite a few uses in project space in the Australian slang sense(s) (see wikt:dob), but nothing to retarget to. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dob and add wiktionary entry for its variants. News searches show stuff related to horse race bets, dobbing in bad parking drivers. Add see also to daub which is a term used in bingo. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and did this on the Dob page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see us delete "dobbed", which doesn't have a clear, set place to go to. The meaning of the term is also unclear and varies. I'm neutral on "dobbing". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf's got this one right. Retarget Dobbing, Delete Dobbed. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2016 (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.

Samsung Galaxy S8

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No information about supposed forthcoming device in article, misleading, - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Samsung Galaxy S series. There isn't anything there for S8 at present (but it's where it will most likely be first) and it is a logical search term given the existence of S5, S6 and S7, etc. and the users will find some information about the series as a whole which is better than a redlink in my view. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Samsung Galaxy S series. This would inform the searcher that the series currently only goes to S7. The redirect would also inhibit speculative article creation that a red link, following deletion, is likely to encourage. Just Chilling (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the above - I would in fact retarget it right now if I wanted to be bold but I think I'll just wait to see if it's a unanimous decision. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Let's wait until there's content on S8, and then a redirect will be logical. Until then, we're misleading our readers. A redlink would at least show that we don't have anything. -- Tavix (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until we have verifiable content about S8. Deryck C. 15:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Just Chilling. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With no content about the S8 there, a redirect would be misleading and inappropriate. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Champion, Tavix, Deryck Chan, and BDD. Furthermore:
    There might not ever be an 8 in the S series. They could call it the first of the hypothetical hyper series (hyper > super > ultra > infra > hypo > sub), or another name, who knows. This should be deleted until there is enough verifiable information to add encyclopedic content about it.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Retarget to Samsung Galaxy S series, the logical target. There is speculation about S8 in the news today. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's mere speculation about the device out there, yes, but I'd like for there to be something more solid first. As well, the series' article contains no information about the forecasted production anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2016 (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.

Brilliant (2013 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 delete both. No consensus on if an (upcoming) style redirect should be made, but those seem like a recipe for make work RfDs when they are no longer upcoming. Discussion on that does not impact the deletion of these redirects though. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find anything about a film named "Brilliant" at the target article. He certainly didn't a film by this name in 2013 or 2014 though. -- Tavix (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Another set of jump-the-gun redirects that are of no use. According to IMDB, the film's been delayed since 2013. — Gorthian (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would advice against that. There's not much utility to a redirect like that, and it would just be deleted once it's no longer "upcoming." -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2016 (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.

Santorin Records

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 JohnCD (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is misleading as the target used to be about a record label, but is now about an

talk) 01:54, 28 July 2016 (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.

C programming language, criticism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 4#C programming language, criticism

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_28&oldid=1088109616"