Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 28, 2013

Comments and researches opposing global warming[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the grammatical problems, this title is too expansive, and is therefore deceptive; most commentary and research opposing mainstream scientific assessment of global warming comes from non-scientists. Furthermore, "opposing global warming" is ambiguous. It could mean opposing the belief that global warming exists, or it could mean literally opposing the warming of the glove, and be extension, opposing human activities believed to contribute to global warming. bd2412 T 15:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

Arabia[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 as is. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war has been brewing over whether Arabia should redirect to Arabian Peninsula (as it has for several years), Saudi Arabia, or Arabia (disambiguation). Clearly a community consensus needs to be reached on this point. I propose that the primary topic of this term is Arabian Peninsula, and that the redirect should point there, as it has since 2005. In short, keep as is. bd2412 T 14:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Replace with disambiguation page as the edit war shows, the disambiguation page seems better. The entity preceding Saudi Arabia (the satrapy) also appears on the disambiguation page. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will you fix the thousand+ incoming links in preparation for such a move? bd2412 T 02:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
      • WP:BOTREQ -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, a bot can not do a disambiguation task, because it may get some of the links wrong. Even clear primary topics like George Washington and Kansas have errant incoming links. These must be fixed by hand, by a person, to avoid incorrect fixes. bd2412 T 21:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep as is with hatnotes on the other two pages. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I hear "Arabia", I do not think of Saudi Arabia. Who does? --JaGatalk 04:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as most likely target. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think of the land mass when I think of Arabia. SchreiberBike (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People who put in Arabia obviously expect the Arabian Peninsula article (my case). not saudi arabia. When we take that into account + how the Arabian Peninsula article already has hatnotes for the other possible uses of the term, and that there are so many incoming links which will be broken, there is no other logical thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.12.37.139 (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2013 (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.

Methylenes[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 Proposal withdrawn Lenticel (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this title should be retargeted to Methylene. The term is WP:DABCONCEPT to concepts covered in that article, with all other listings on the disambig page being comparatively minor uses, either obsolete names or partial title matches. bd2412 T 06:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Proposal withdrawn. I am convinced by the discussion below that methylenes is ambiguous to methylene. bd2412 T 21:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  • See my reply on the Talk:Methylenes page. The three main meanings are quite distinct and are definitely not (and cannot be) all covered by methylene, which is (and largely was) specifically about the first meaning only. The other two meanings are not "covered" at all in methylene; they are mentioned briefly there only to alert editors about the confusing state of the nomenclature so that they can link to the right place. Please do not redirect methylenes to methylene, that would only perpetuate the confusion. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If methylenes means something distinct to methylene, that would not make methylenes ambiguous to methylene, which is what a redirect to the disambiguation page implies - in other words, having methylenes redirect to methylene (disambiguation) suggests that methylenes may itself refer to any of the things on that page, including methylene. If a distinct meaning exists, then the most straightforward solution would be for Wikipedia to have an article on the topic actually covered by this meaning, rather than a redirect. As it stands, it seems that the topics on the disambiguation page are a primarily a family of chemical combinations characterized by the presence of a carbon atom bound to two hydrogen atoms. bd2412 T 12:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
      • But that is indeed what I understand (from the topics themselves and from the quote recently added to the page in methylene): the word "methylenes" or "methylene" unfortunately may mean any one of those three things (never all three) depending on the context. The three topics do not constitute a "chemical family"; they are one substance and two very different details that a molecule may or may not have, independently, in different places.
        The distinction between the three meanings is very important for articles that use the word, because, depending on which sense is intended (say, in the sentence "step XX adds a methylene to the ring"), the reactions and products described will be completely different. I cannot imagine a context where "methylene" could mean "either a bridging or a doubly linked CH2".
        Yesterday I spent several hours going through a hundred articles that linked to "methylene" or "methylenes", fixing the links to point to the correct meaning. In most cases I could figure that out by using what I know of chemistry. In a few cases, however, I simply could not understand the article; I left a link to the disamb, hoping that some specialist will sort it out.
        Please note that I am not objecting to removal of the methylenes redirect; indeed it should be removed once I am done fixing the links that still point to it (some 50 articles or so). What I object to is merging the three articles, or creating a generic article that intends to cover all three meanings and is not a disamb page.
        As in the case of "spring" or "pipe", it is not sensible to have one article covering all three meanings; even though they have something in common (in this case, the elemental formula "CH2") almost everything else (reactions, spectroscopy, stability etc) is very different each concept. As in the case of "spring" and "pipe", Wikipedia should have an article on each meaning, and disambiguate every generic link [[methylene] to one of those three.
        Perhaps a way out of this confusion is (1) rename the current methylene to methylene (free radical); (2) rename the current methylene (disambiguation) to methylene; (3) make methylenes point to this disamb page; (4) fix the remaining links to methylenes; (5) delete the methylenes redirect. Would that be better?
        All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for fixing the links. I am dubious about renaming methylene - the question there is, what is the primary topic of the term? If it is the free radical, then that page should stay where it is. Otherwise, it will just become a magnet for disambiguation links that will later need to be fixed. It is an unusual situation for the plural of a noun to mean something different from the noun itself, but if moving methylene is the only other option, I would rather leave things as they are now, with methylenes redirecting to the disambig page. I am curious, though, about what you found in fixing those incoming links. Where did they tend to resolve? bd2412 T 14:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
          • The methylene article is (and was, when I started working on it) about the free molecule: with chembox, refs, molecular formula, everything about it. The name and topic were not my choice.
            Scanning my "Contributions" list, adding together and old links to methylene and to methylenes: 91 became methylene bridge, 22 became methylene group, 2 became methylene (the molecule), 5 I could not figure out (could be the molecule or the group) so changed them to methylene (disambiguation). Hardly unexpected, given the abundance in common compounds/reactions.
            Given these numbers one would normally consider moving things around so that methylene is methylene bridge. However, methylene group still is about 1 in 5 cases; and the distinction is critical where they are used. Therefore that switch would probably generate many errors in the articles, when authors link to methylene when they meant methylene group. Of course errors are much worse than links to a disamb page.
            All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • PS. That listing also shows that 90+ out the 97 links to methylene (singular) were dead wrong, since they pointed to a molecule that had absolutely nothing to do with the link's context. Readers who followed those links to know what the word meant would have been thoroughly confused. If the page is not renamed, we can expect the same rate of errors in future links. Methinks it is better to have 100 links to an explicit disamb than one link to the wrong sense of the word...
            BTW(1) there were 25 links to methylenes (plural).
            BTW(2) The 5 methylene links I could not resolve are in Cyclophane Johnson–Corey–Chaykovsky reaction Organoselenium chemistry Persistent carbene Tröger's base. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • PPS. One correction to my numbers: now I recall that there were several articles that linked to methylene (molecule) and the link was correct. I didn't edit those so they did not show in my Contributions list. I see that there are still ~30 articles that link to methylene. Some may be correct, some I may have missed. Before I check them again, I would rather decide on whether the page is to be renamed to something specific like "methylene (molecule)".
            • The number of links not intended for the current prime target does seem to suggest ambiguity. I'd really like some other views on this. bd2412 T 04:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't support the proposed 'retarget', based on the uncertainty about the implied corellation with Methylene. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreover, though multiple definitions of methylene may be obsolete, they are historic; ergo, the uncertainty. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2013 (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.

Template:WBGS-geo-stub[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 Close. Already deleted. Ruslik_Zero 18:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete the name "WBGS" is a novel creation of an wikipedian. The term "WBGS" is unused outside of Wikipedia in this context, per the TFD discussion that moved the template to a non-opaque name. This is an unsuitable redirect, it isn't about WBGS. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2013 (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.

New Super Mario Bros. (series)[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 Super Mario (series). Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy, this redirect goes to Mario Kart which makes no sense. There are "New Super Mario Bros." games, but they aren't a new "series" from the existing SMB games, so this doesn't make sense to have this redirect. MASEM (t) 03:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The New Super Mario Bros. series is completely different from the Mario Kart series. ~satellizer~~talk~ 03:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect to Super Mario (series) - I've boldly changed it to this, as New Super Mario Bros. games are covered in the parent series article about the Super Mario Bros. series. Salvidrim! ✉ 03:35, 28 January 2013 (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.

Cham Albanians Genocide[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving from MFD. Rationale was "Can't find this term in the literature anywhere." Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Web searches throw up lots of hits, and books searches return some hits, for this event being termed a genocide. Indeed the article includes the sourced sentence "This day, was announced in Albania in 1994 as The Day of Greek Chauvinist Genocide Against the Albanians of Chameria." (italics in original). There doesn't seem to be a single term used, but this, "Genocide of Cham Albanians", "Genocide of the Cham Albanians" and "Chamerian genocide" and similar are often used, making them useful search terms - even if not used directly (and this title gets human use) they will aid the search engine to give the relevant article. If this discussion closes as keep, then I recommend these redlinks be created as redirects to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Obviously the few web hits are related to the Cham Cambodian Genocide (on the other edge of the world), nothing to do with 'Cham Albanian Genocide' [[1]] whith zero results on gbooks (obviously a non-existent event).Alexikoua (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't used in books with this exact name, but the event clearly exists, e.g. " Albanian scholars maintain that the Greek government and voluntary bands under the pretext of implementing the Treaty of Lausanne did use force and deception to expel the Cham Albanians from lands ... claimed by both Greece and Albania" [2]. The term is non-neutral, not being used by the Greek side, but per WP:RNEUTRAL that doesn't matter. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2013 (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/2013_January_28&oldid=1140228029"