Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 5

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 James (name). --BDD (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Gemmes → James (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This is not a French equivalent of the English name, it means "gemstone". TheChampionMan1234 01:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. See http://www.name-doctor.com/name-gemmes-meaning-of-gemmes-36701.html and http://www.mybabyname.com/names/Gemmes , which lists Gemmes as a diminutive of James. As @TheChampionMan1234: points out, it is also the plural of gem in French. It may also be terminology from one or more computer games. See also Sainte-Gemmes and Sainte-Gemme. This would probably be better as a disambiguation page than a redirect. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the French version of James is "Jacques" , are you sure you're picking the right language? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to James (name) and mention in target article per Eastmain's link. Name variants in different languages are valid encyclopedic content. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Number 57 17:47, 5 July 2014 (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.

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 consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Element-arch-stub → Template:Architecturalelement-stub (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Non-standard stub tag name (we don't have an {{arch-stub}}), left from a page move in 2008, no longer used. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless this name is needed for something else. The template is called by this name in numerous revisions of articles, so deleting it will break history. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Number 57 17:47, 5 July 2014 (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.

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 Windows 7. This was a tough one because no one supported the status quo, though only the nominator advocated deletion. I've considered the idea that this redirect could propagate rather than alleviate confusion as was discussed. All parties seem to agree that a reader searching for this term wants Windows 7, so that's where it will point. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Windows NT 7.0 → Windows NT 6.1 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Redirect from a greatly incorrect name, which is actually harmful to Wikipedia — we don’t have a Windows 7.0 one, Microsoft is free to create a future 7.0 version which has nothing to do with Windows 7, an anyone familiar with the NT term is likely to know the actual version numbers. � (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Windows NT#Releases: there was common misconception around Windows 7 (Windows NT 6.1), which was believed by some to be trade name for Windows NT 7.0. This redirect appears to be created under this misconception. I believe the deletion of this redirect would cause more confusion then retargetting it to version history of Windows NT until version 7.0 of NT would be released. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn’t it violate the principle of least astonishment? � (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see what you mean, but I don't think this will indeed violate principle of least astonishment. Target section gives enough context to unambiguously answer the question, which the reader poses by typing in "Windows NT 7.0" query: no such thing was released. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Windows 7 as an {{R from incorrect name}}, until such a time as 7.0 is released, then a hatnote can be added at NT7 for Win7. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is irresponsible. If done so, "Windows NT 7.0" queries on several sites (eg. in DuckDuckGo search engine) will bring Windows 7 as a search result, which is rather misleading. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is unfortunate, but how does it violate redirect policy? --NYKevin 01:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It violates WP:BADIDEA and (in spirit, not letter) WP:R#KEEP criterion 4. Otherwise it's policy-compatible irresponsible behavior. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 04:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{R from incorrect name}} is an {{R unprintworthy}} redirect, so should be a NOINDEX page IIRC. It should not show up in search engines. And we can explicitly add NOINDEX. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Number 57 17:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Windows 7 How many of our readers know that technically Windows 7 equals NT 6.1, or however the hell that works? The answer is close to zero. Nearly anyone hearing of a Windows called 7 will think Windows 7, and any other target would violate the principle of least astonishment. If there is an NT 7 someday (unlikely) then we can change it, but there isn't. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2014 (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.

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 consensus. I've tagged 97 and 99 as incorrect names and 93 as a former name; Windows 95 indicates that 93 was a predecessor or working title. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Windows 97 → Windows 98 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Windows 93 → Windows 95 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Windows 99 → Windows 98 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No such OSes, name never used by Microsoft. Compare Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 30#Windows 2007 and Windows 2009. Note i am not proposing the deletion of Windows 96, since that was an actual project (eventually released as Internet Explorer 4 instead of a whole new OS version). � (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: preview versions of Windows 95 and 98 were frequently labeled as Windows 93 and Windows 97 on pirate CDs. I recall at least two CDs with "Windows 97" back in the day. Windows 99 was a pirate name for Windows 98 SE, and I also recall the time when nearly every pirate POS had a disk with this label. These redirects could be helpful to those comming across such disks or ancient forum threads. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^{[citation needed]} � (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't own any Windows CDs, but I have some other refs for Windows 93 (also win93 in MS document) and Windows 97. I don't seem to find anything for "Windows 99" though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Different suggestions:
  • KEEP Windows 99 as it don't violate WP:CBALL. It's the name on pirated Windows Disks which is actually modded Windows 98 Second Edition.
  • DELETE Windows 97 - No one referred it as the beta version of 98! No VMs are running 97. At least some of them runs 99.
  • CloudComputation ^{Talk freely}
    _CloudTracker 13:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Number 57 17:47, 5 July 2014 (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.