Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 February 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 21, 2011

Kinetic force[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. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. New article created today, should have been speedied as misleading nonsense. Another editor chose to convert it to a redirect instead. It's still misleading nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I redirected it because even though the term isn't scientific, it is possible for it to be used in a search by a non-scientific person. (As witness, the creation of the article that led to this...). Peridon (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a good example of where a redirect from an incorrect but plausible term will help people find what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Thryduulf said, this is exactly what redirects are for. Rossami (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This vague wooliness isn't what redirects are for, it's what fuzzy matching algorithms in searches are for. Just how many more arbitrarily constructed pseudoscience terms do we still need to add? gravity inertia? potential acceleration? Colorless green ideas sleep furiously? These terms are nonsense, and it is not our purpose to give credence to nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By having a redirect here we are not giving credence to nonsense, we are acknowledging the existence of a common misconception and educating our readers by redirecting them to the article they are looking for. Fuzzy matching algorithms in searches are all well and good, but the search box is only one of many ways that people use to navigate Wikipedia and such algorithms cannot work with all these methods. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a common misconception(source? gHits that aren't just a shoe brand?), it's just one of the infinite monkeys in ten years finally banging these two particular rocks together. Popular misconceptions should be addressed, but not random combinations. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits are a very good measure of some things and a useless one of others. The existence and relative frequency of certain terms is one thing that falls into the first category. If you want more precise metrics, there are approximately 203 questions asking about "kinetic force" at Yahoo Answers [1] and 205 discussions including the phrase at Physics Forums [2]. It is apparently included in the article "Teachers' conceptions and misconceptions concerning three natural phenomena" in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (only the abstract is freely viewable unfortunately). The paper '[The Changing Meanings of Force http://www.cs.phs.uoa.gr/en/staff/force.pdf]" (jointly published by the University of Cyprus and the University of Athens), includes the following statements, "Some students believed that there is a force on all falling objects because they fall. Some of them referred to this force as "the kinetic force" (page 24), "The same student says in Question 22 that there is a "kinetic force" on the falling stone. As it becomes clear from this example, many children in this group mixed up energy with force." (page 34), "It was common for students to use terms like "kinetic force" (to characterize the movement of an object being pushed by a man)..." (page 43) [all italics in original]. I'd say that all this was more than ample evidence that this is a common misconception. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

New album of Mylène Farmer[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article was created before the album title was known, and these are redirects created by page moves. The redirects may have been plausible at the time, but not now as the album is not new, and is not Mylène Farmer's most recent album. Peter E. James (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the album was released in 2008, and the singer released another album in 2010, these redirects don't seem to serve the purpose they were created for. I think they could be deleted with no harm. Alternately, they could be retargeted to Bleu Noir, the 2010 album, though I don't know that this would be a likely search term. Cnilep (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if retargeted, the problem would arise again with the next album. Better to get rid and remember to watch for any other similar redirects that might be caught at birth... Peridon (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_21&oldid=616124290"