Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 15, 2018.

Great Planes[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 disambiguate. --BDD (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, this redirect should be retargeted to Wings (1988 TV program), which is an alternate title for this American documentary television program. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment wherever this targets there should be a hatnote to Great Plains. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create disambiguation page. My "great+plane" DuckDuckGo search has pages referring to the model plane / flight simulation company on top. Mainspace incoming links all refer to the model plane company too. Since there is both a TV programme by the same name and potential confusion with Great Plains. There is also "polar great plane" and "Great Plane of Andromeda" in astronomy. Nevermind, there's only one of it, mentioned in Andromeda Galaxy, so someone searching for the plural probably isn't looking for the Great Plane of Andromeda. But it's still useful to have this if we turn "Great Planes" into a dab. I think that's enough different uses for a dab page to be useful. Deryck C. 13:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

North Korean languages[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: Singulars to North Korean standard language and plurals to North Korea#Language. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 22#Languages of North Korea.

I think all these should point to the same place, probably North Korea#Language, with a hatnote to a disambiguation page listing the other targets, Korean language and Koreanic languages. It would be possible to combine the disambiguation page with the one I propose for the equivalent redirects for South Korea, but I'm unsure at the moment whether one or two dabs would be preferable. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with BDD. It isn't actually necessary at all that these go to the same place. They should go to where its makes the most sense for them to go on a case-by-case basis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "languages" to North Korea#Language and retarget "language" to North Korean standard language (roughly analogous to Brazilian language → Brazilian Portuguese). I concur with the above that people who search or link "<country> languages" are probably trying to find discussion of all the languages spoken or frequently studied in a country, while "<country> language" implies the main language of the country in question.. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I.e., same as BDD's idea. Took a while to parse that. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

South Korean languages[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: Singulars to South Korean standard language and plurals to Demographics of South Korea#Languages. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that these should all be pointing to different places. My first thought is that Demographics of South Korea#Languages is the best place, with a disambiguation page linking to the other targets and Koreanic languages (which is listed in the hatnote currently there).

See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 22#Languages of South Korea which resulted in a retargetting from North–South differences in the Korean language to Demographics of South Korea#Languages. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per BDD. They should go where they make the most sense to go, case by case, not be forced into a fake conformity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SMcCandlish: but what is that place? Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm agreeing with BDD's suggestions. (Not ruling out other ideas, of course, but the nom's idea to just send them all to the same place isn't going to produce as helpful a result.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "languages" to Demographics of South Korea#Languages and retarget "language" to South Korean standard language (roughly analogous to Brazilian language → Brazilian Portuguese). I concur with the above that people who search or link "<country> languages" are probably trying to find discussion of all the languages spoken or frequently studied in a country, while "<country> language" implies the main language of the country in question. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MassLive[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 keep, though I could just as easily say "no consensus" or even just "moot". It would seem this is resolved. --BDD (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of MassLive.com on the destination page has been removed, for lack of sourcing, so this redirect is no longer appropriate, offering help where none is to be found. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 00:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – While I saw the !vote here, I only realized today that AngusWOOF had added MassLive.com back to the target page with the "About Us" page as reference. While that sourcing is not as good as we might like, it renders my original nomination moot. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Acoptic polygon[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) 13:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term not present in target article, nothing to tell the reader why they have reached this article. No evidence that this is a useful redirect until someone adds sourced info to the target article to explain the term. PamD 10:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I quick web search seems to suggest (with the full disclaimer that I don't have much of a background in maths) that "acoptic" is used to describe polyhedra that do not self-intersect [3] [4]. If the term is used about polygons as well (my five-minute web search didn't reveal as much), then the appropriate target would seem to be Simple polygon. – Uanfala (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, and I've changed the redirect. I believe this usage would be supported by the Convex polytopes reference in the Simple polygon article, but I don't have a copy on hand. (Polytopes include polyhedra and polygons.) Somebody already reviewed Coptic polygon without RfDing it, and if anything this is better attested. There's also a related RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_25#Coptic_polyhedron. If there's still an issue, can we please discuss all these redirects involving the usage of the terms coptic, acoptic, and nonacoptic in geometry in one place? -Apocheir (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Acoptic polyhedron" is a term used in the mathematical literature, but "acoptic polygon" is not, and the back-formation of one from the other is original research. For that matter, the coptic polygon redirect is also original research by back-formation. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. David Eppstein's rationale is convincing, but while we definitely want to avoid propagating neologisms (especially in Wikipedia's voice), I'm on the fence about whether we really need to kill all neologistic redirects. If it helps someone find the right article it might be OK. --Trovatore (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Neologisms of this sort are in a certain sense similar to typos- the issue is not is it OR but it is plausible/likely someone will type this in? In that context, answer seems to be yes. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we can't put it into the redirect target article without sources, and if the reader is redirected to a random article that doesn't mention the neologism they will be left as confused as before. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be leaning delete, but let's give it one more relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form I can easily see how this could be helpful. I am not sure where it would redirect to, though. If it is incorrect, we can tag it with {{R from incorrect name}}.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David Eppstein. I don't know anything about the topic, but there are in my view precious few situations where redirecting a technical term to a broader article where the term is not defined is anything but unhelpful and potentially confusing to the reader. @Apocheir: I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say "this usage would be supported", but the term "acoptic polygon" doesn't appear in the index of the Grünbaum book cited in the Simple polygon article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the comments above which expounded the history and meaning of "acoptic polyhedron". It is apparent that "acoptic" was coined specifically for polyhedra[5]. Despite the fact that it is possible to parse "acoptic polygon" literally and ascribe the meaning of "polygon which does not self-intersect" i.e. simple polygon, there's no known reliable-source usage of "acoptic polygon", so we would be promoting an incorrect technical term if we kept the redirect. Adding to that Arms & Hearts' rationale that we shouldn't be "redirecting a technical term to a broader article where the term is not defined", I'm of the opinion that we should delete this redirect. If we delete the redirect, then readers will be shown the search results Special:Search/Acoptic_polygon~ which will tell them how the word "acoptic" is supposed to be used. Deryck C. 14:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gavin Cushny[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) 20:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target at all. While tragic, are we going to create redirects for all 2606 people who died in the terror attack? Onel5969 TT me 16:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and there not being mentioned on the target article. I'm sure we've had this discussion before about other redirects, but if we have I can't find it. It's worth noting that we do have Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks, which names all 412 victims who were emergency services workers, but none of these names are on those lists. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and redirect to list/article Obviously all known victims of September 11th are of some note - many have a reasonable amount of media coverage we shouldn't use the scale of the tragedy as a reason for excluding them from Wikipedia (in fact the scale makes it all the more notable). That said, the nominator does make a good point in that the article doesn't mention the names in question, and therefore we need either a list or article with the names as a more appropriate target. I've focused on British victims of the attacks but I'll hold off for now and perhaps focus on the emergency workers.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no such list, and the repeated consensus is that there should not be as simply being the vicitm of a disaster, no matter how great, does not make you notable (read WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There used to be a separate wiki for September 11 commemoration, but that was made read only in 2006 and moved off Wikimedia Foundation servers some time after that, and now appears to be offline (the sep11 interwiki goes to an Internet Archive index). Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't disagree with what you're saying, but an individual doesn't have to fully satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements to merit a redirect though - that's why they're redirects and not full articles.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - While this is a tough decision, I agree with the above arguments that Wikipedia is not a memorial and keeping a list of the many individuals killed doesn't seem appropriate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf, with no prejudice against recreating these if an article mentioning them by name were to be created. As long as they're not mentioned in the target the redirects provide no useful information to the reader and are potentially confusing (especially in the case of a common name like Oliver Bennett, which one imagines could refer to many unrelated people). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Superhero Party of Korea[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) 20:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this name is ever used to refer to the target, a Google search for the name in quotes does not return anything. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

PerFold[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) 20:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a real breed and no longer mentioned at the list article. I attempted to source this, but no cat registry recognizes this as a breed, not even the most permissive ones like Catz and REFR. Even attempting to source it "as a thing" at all fails; there aren't any RS hits, just WP:UGC / WP:SPS like Revolvy.com, FantasyCats.com, the blacklisted site PetsWorld.in, Pinterest; breeders' promotional spam; and sites regurgitating our own breed lists. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.— TAnthonyTalk 13:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The term doesn't seem to have any other meanings, isn't mentioned at Wiktionary, etc. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Infobox Imam[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. --BDD (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this redirect to Template:Infobox clergy? Wouldn't an Imam be considered "clergy"?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the template is orphaned. --Danski454 (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Infobox clergy which has the relevant parameters without all the cruft that wouldn't pertain to an imam, versus a Baptist minister from Kanasas. Redirect rather than delete so no one uses the redlink as an excuse to create a new one for imams. Infobox religious biography should likely be nominated for merge with Infobox clergy. It's a redundant template.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2018_July_15&oldid=1036306087"