[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 14

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 14, 2016.

Hawaii Territory/version 2

[edit]
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 speedy delete. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual /version 2 residual redirect to Territory of Hawaii Eyesnore 22:20, 14 April 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.

Hircine

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 27#Hircine

Gray reds

[edit]
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 all. In view of two previous RfDs (1, 2) and the WP:CSD#G6 special Neelix clause, I do not think we need to have another debate about these. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Neelix redirect has the same problem as Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Red_grey, because seal brown does not have red in it. I also nominate these redirects for the same reason:

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:04, 14 April 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.

Square Division Table of Organization and Equipment

[edit]
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. Deryck C. 17:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the redirect is not mentioned at target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks to Rossami for finding that article, perhaps this was R was WP:RFD#D1 blocking my search for it. I don't think it helps to redirect there, because this is such a specific term that taking it anywhere more general is going to be surprising. Perhaps we should just own up that we don't have any information about this specific thing, and WP:REDLINK it. Si Trew (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si Trew. This obviously suggests something more specific than Table of organization and equipment or Square division alone (cf. WP:XY). --BDD (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would oppose red-linking it because I think it is too specific. The likelihood that anyone would created the desired article or that it could ever become more than a perma-stub seems small. I would be happy if someone proved me wrong, of course, but they can do that by overwriting the redirect. No reason to leave readers in the dark in the meantime. Rossami (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion isn't always to encourage creation. If the topic is notable, it's good to have coverage of it, even if it's a permastub. If it's not, and users keep creating it, we can salt it. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 25 April 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.

Redirects containing the phrase "world conflicts"

[edit]
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. The rough consensus is that there aren't unambiguously suitable targets for any of these redirects. Deryck C. 21:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is misleading to assume that "world conflict" means "armed conflict", especially since the word "conflict" is ambiguous and since World conflict and World conflicts do not exist to help identify the term "world conflict". Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that's what most people mean, and if there's no second possible redirect target, I think these are fine. (If there were, we could turn these into disambiguation pages.) -- Beland (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: Mmm, "world conflicts" sounds more like "armed conflicts currently raging around the world" whereas "world conflict" could mean "world war" as opposed to "regional war". Or at least those are the connotations I get, which could vary from person to person. No one has ever bothered to put anything at "world conflict", and I think that's a sign that it's not really something people search for. I wouldn't go out of our way to create speculative links, so unless someone comes along and says "I searched for this (or could imagine myself doing so on a groggy Saturday) and didn't find what I wanted" I would just leave it empty for now. -- Beland (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:20, 14 April 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.

Redirects containing "conflict" without a non-time descriptive adjective

[edit]
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. The strongest argument to delete is that these redirects "inhibit search" but I can find no evidence that they actually do so and there is at least one comment below explicitly arguing that they would be an aid to search. Rossami (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the disambiguation page Conflict, the term "conflict" isn't exclusive to armed conflict, so thus, these redirects are ambiguous and could refer to multiple separate subjects (WP:XY). Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Mmm, I think that page actually used to be at "ongoing conflicts" and that's actually what I still type to get there sometimes. I'm not sure there's a good redirect target for "ongoing social conflicts" since we don't seem to have lists of anything other than the armed kind. If someone discovers one or more pages that someone might actually be looking for when typing "ongoing conflicts" etc. we could always put a hatnote on "List of ongoing armed conflicts" that link to a single page, or make the redirects into disambiguation pages. As it is, I'm inclined to say we should leave these redirects as they are. -- Beland (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think the armed conflicts are overwhelmingly likely to be the topic those search terms are looking for. Adjustment to the hatnote might be useful, but I don't see any other relevant article to direct readers to. Worrying about the lack of 'armed' in those redirect names seems overly pedantic to me. Modest Genius talk 11:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ongoing conflict could perhaps refer to a perpetual war. For the Duration is an album, unfortunately (and, unfortunately) so that's no help. Si Trew (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:19, 14 April 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.

LTE (telecommunications)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 27#LTE (telecommunications)

List of Deployed HSUPA networks

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 21#List of Deployed HSUPA networks

Trump Train

[edit]
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. There is certainly some disagreement but it wouldn't be right to ignore the strong majority here favouring deletion. Relisting attracted little extra participation in the debate so the original rough consensus to delete is enacted. Deryck C. 15:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google search reveals little use of the term, I don't think this redirect is needed. Laber□T 22:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's red and always has been; so is Trump train wreck. Si Trew (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A ha ha! So edgy. You must be proud of yourself for that one. (Seriously, I'm not seeing your comment for anything other than a childish attempt at disparaging Trump's campaign for no apparent point. There's a reason why contentious issues like religion or politics are off-limits for these kinds of petty "jokes".) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^^^No sense of humor... Watching the news and comedy shows must be super tough for you. Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, my response was done in a half-joking manner. It's not like I'm personally offended or anything. (The smalltext was later added to prevent some tool misinterpreting it as a personal attack against you). That being said, I keep my humor in situations that ask for it - or would you not mind if I dropped Bernie loves Free Shit!!! quips all over Sanders-related discussions? Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I took it as a serious suggestion and thought Legacypac had just mistyped. I'm all for injecting a bit of lightheartedness into discussions, but I just didn't get this one. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@gov is Twitter's government and elections team. It's an official Twitter account. - Eureka Lott 04:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A twitter hashtag is no more a real term than SimonTrew or EurekaLott; anyway that is #TrumpTrain not "Trump Train". We don't have the others on that Twitter poll, CruzCrew, TeamMarco or Kasich4Us, nor do we have spaced variants; and neither should we. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, we do have {{R from hashtag}}. -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it represents the momentum/support of his campaign. So it's not a physical thing like some of his products and structures. But it might be one day, there could be a train named after him or a famous artwork, who knows? Even if that doesn't happen we should still have it do to its significant usage, here it is in two more headlines since this discussion started [7], [8]. Wickypedoia (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I took it to mean a train company that quickly went out of business. HighInBC 21:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, our article at train wreck is for the literal sense (train crash in British English) and we have train wreck (disambiguation) to mention the metaphorical. I have not seen "train wreck" (or "train crash") used in Britain in its metaphorical sense, but I'm aware of that meaning and didn't think it meant that Trump had somehow been involved in a railroad collision. But I don't see that it makes a good redirect unless there are specific references to Trump or his campaign being a metaphorical train wreck. Si Trew (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I though it was like many other things with "Trump" in front of it and that it was a failed business. HighInBC 15:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, a "train" to mean something following has shades of meaning from the literal to abstract metaphor, so it seems a reasonable bit of headline language to denote Trump's presidential campaign. But then, why not just have them for everything? Without RS that this term is actually used, it's a bit flimsy and we shouldn't make up terms (WP:NEOLOGISM). Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further debate of the keep-arguments towards the end of the week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure how this got relisted, the consensus seemed rather obvious to me. I would like to reiterate that I don't think this is a likely redirect and that I stand by my opinion that it should be deleted. I do this because the only reason I can think of for this to be relisted is if the closer thought I and others were somehow not aware of the arguments made here? HighInBC 15:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't think there was consensus first time round, so to me it was sensible to relist.
TrumpTrain is red, presumably because we don't like CamelCase any more; then to sneak in Trump Train (not Trump train or #Trump train or #TrumpTrain etc) is pushing it when it is not mentioned at the target. Still WP:RFD#D2 confusing, as deminstrated above, where other editors thought it might be a real train (and why not? Plenty of campaigners get trains, Battle bus(s)es or bandwagons). Si Trew (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an idiot, that is because it is just referencing a nonexistent section in this same page, duh. Nice to see that they don't call them poundtags, though. Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This is indeed a sort of nickname for his campaign, but this would be a better redirect if mentioned at the target article. Compare to Clean for Gene, for example. I'm tentatively comfortable with it as an {{R without mention}} just because it's really a synonym. If someone tells you to "get on the Trump Train", they're saying to support the campaign. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 21 April 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.

List of Unices

[edit]
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 List of Unix systems. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get how it may refer to Unix, more likely could be the DABs at Unic or Unice but implausible for either. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 09:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Generally, because the list was deleted as some point and redirected to the article to stop it showing as a red-link, and was then recreated at the List of... name once fresh sources came along. ‑ Iridescent 19:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, just an oversight, then? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. This kind of nerd grammar is baffling to outsiders but is genuine, in the same way that you'll find some die-hard Wikipediots insisting that the plural of "infobox" is "infoboxen". ‑ Iridescent 19:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or that children should be childs or brethren should be brothers.

If kine is the plural of cow

And the plural of sow is swine
Then pumpkins can hang from a a vow
And coronets rest upon brine

— Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Si Trew (talk) 20:31, 14 April 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.

Violent conflict

[edit]
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 withdrawn by nominator, namely (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After the recent discussion for Armed conflict, I'm wondering whether this should be retargeted to the DAB at Conflict as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Although wars are generally violent, not all violent conflict is war; domestic violence for example. The "violent" is really redundant unless one wanted a distinction with peaceful conflict or nonviolent conflict which we have not got, although I guess if we did they would go to Pacifism or Passive resistance or somesuch, if not just to negotiation or diplomacy.

Nothing links to it, stats are below noise level. Si Trew (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete; my preference would be a dab page to Police action and War, but that would mean a good deal of writing for little benefit to reaaders. @Si Trew, the opposite of "violent conflict" isn't "peaceful conflict", it's cold war (a page which could use some serious rewriting, but which is certainly a genuine concept). ‑ Iridescent 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Making a DAB page is not a big deal, we turn redirects into DABs quite regularly here. Considering that you had to pipe cold war (general term) as "cold war" indicates that even cold war (disambiguation) needs, er, disambiguation (and it is at Cold War (disambiguation). Tat's by the by, we're not discussing "nonviolent conflict" but "violent conflict". (Although you're right, I hadn't thought of that one.) As far as I can tell, "violent conflict" is used by sloppy journalists in reliable sources to mean "conflict", not always physical violence. Si Trew (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Trust me, this is not something I intend to lose sleep over. There may well be a reader out there thinking "why isn't there a word for when a bunch of soldiers start shooting at each other?", but they're not a reader whose opinions matter. It strikes me that a decent dab page would also need proxy war, endemic warfare, range war, nationalist terrorism and all those other cheery things that lie on the spectrum between "the absence of war" and "we begin bombing in five minutes", and providing even minimal descriptions would cause a lot of aggravation for very little benefit. ‑ Iridescent 19:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're probably right, there's no need for us to have a violent conflict – sorry, war – over it. I only listed it really as part of the tidying up of the various combat/conflict redirects, there are bigger fish to fry. Withdrawn without prejudice. Si Trew (talk) 20:43, 14 April 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.

Ohad Shem-Tov

[edit]
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) 19:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While this person was, in fact, the head of the Ale Yarok party at one time, he was later expelled from the party, and became the head of a different party - Pirate Party of Israel. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:13, 14 April 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.

Religious explanations of gravity

[edit]
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) 19:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The target says nothing whatsoever as to how religions explain gravity. We have intelligent falling, but this is obvious parody of religious explanations of life, and not really about gravity at all. This redirect resulted from this articles for deletion discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I don't really see much consensus at the deletion discussion for changing the (embryo) article into a redirect – two !votes to retarget, one to keep, and one to delete. It seems to me that the retarget option is chosen really as a default, but as Oiyarbepsy points out, the current target makes no mention of gravity. I enjoyed the intelligent falling article, I had not heard of that before; but that presumably would be an irreligious explanation of gravity. I presume most explanations in history have been in some way religious if anybody thought much about it at all until the Rennaissance; History of gravitational theory is perhaps a possible target? Si Trew (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Having looked at a few of the references listed in the AFD, it's clear to me that none of them actually had explanations beyond "since God created the universe, he created gravity as well." Other than that I cannot find anything that goes beyond prescientific "things fall to earth because it is their nature to do so," which is hardly religious; History of gravitational theory mentions a few ancient musings on the matter, none of which have any relationship to religion. the redirect as an alternative to deletion that should have failed in the face of more complete research. Mangoe (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Conatus. As with most scientific history pre-Industrial Revolution, Wikipedia's coverage is fairly awful, but I think it's a reasonable assumption that most readers searching for "religious explanation of gravity" want to know "what did people believe before Newton and Galileo", which in the case of Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe was the theory of the conatus. ‑ Iridescent 18:56, 15 April 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.

Linux++

[edit]
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) 08:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable distro, not in the list of Linux distributions or anywhere else. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:32, 14 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_14&oldid=1251534774"