Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 9, 2014.

No Way! I Can't Believe This![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) 16:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really cannot believe this either! But, in all seriousness, I believe this is a non-notable phrase stated by the game's main antagonist at some random point in the game; the phrase is not mentioned in the article. I'm not completely sure what I would be looking for if I looked for this redirect's title, but it certainly isn't this. I say delete for now. Steel1943 (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No Way! I Can't Believe This....is a redirect!.... As per nom I'm unsure as to what purpose this actually serves, Ofcourse If it were a famous well known quote I might understand but it isn't, Seems pretty useless IMO. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm trying to recall, because I am hopeless at looking up histories, but didn't this come up for discussion at RfD a few days ago and got deleted? But it was not to the same target I think but to a pop song or album. I'm probably thinking of something else. Si Trew (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must be mistaken. It was only created in the middle of Feb and has only sat where it now is, according to its history. There was something pretty similar though. I can't remember the outcome. Si Trew (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this your card? --BDD (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed. Wouldn't this be deleted by the same reasoning? Si Trew (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite the same case, IMO. If that phrase was a specific catchphrase, we didn't identify it as such. It seemed to be a generalized expression of denial. I was somewhat surprised to see the creators of this redirect and that one weren't the same, though. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's right, it was Doctor Eggman who said it, not Sonic. Even though I can recite most of the dialogue from this game, I definitely forgot about this line. It's a line that Doctor Eggman almost makes his catchphrase in the game by the way he says it. But, yeah, it's not in the Doctor Eggman article, and it's probably not the first topic people are trying to find when looking up this phrase. Steel1943 (talk) 02:21, 10 April 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.

Class numbber (group theory)[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) 16:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term with the typo and parentheses. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too bad that it's FAR too old (about 8 years old, in fact) to be eligible for speedy deletion per criterion R3. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Unlikely search term. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Davey. A typo is fine but this is a rather unlikely one, far more likely to miss the parens or whatever. In any case, the search engine has got a little better in eight years, and will find it. Si Trew (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and everyone else. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:58, 12 April 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.

Rule following[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. Involved closed given the backlog and with clear consensus after two weeks of listing. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could work as a standalone article, but in the meantime, redirecting a concept to one philosophical work that discusses it doesn't seem to make much sense. BDD (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:Retarget. I have this book (the one at the target) but not on me right now. In itself the title is misleading (I don't mean Wikipedia's article title but the book title), since it is a bit of meta-philosophy by one philosopher about another. That's by the by, "Rule following" would seem to be better to go to Law or something like that. Regimentation? Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Ah, Regimentation does not have an article but came up blue for me because there is a Wiktionary link for it. We have rule of law but that is not what this is about, it is more about private family rules. Family law is a DAB and the entries are just about the legal aspects (reasonably enough). Norm (social) might do (I got that from the DAB at custom). Si Trew (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not about the AI or computer science concept. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, this is better off as an article.--Lenticel (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know what "rule following" means in computer science: is it meant as some apposition to e.g. genetic programming or stochastics in that one builds 'intelligence' into a computer program via a set of rules? That's just computer programming, then, since all computer languages are necessarily rule-based (except a few quirky obscure ones that are deliberately random for the fun of it). e.g. for about thirty years machine translation programs such as SYSTRAN used grammatical rules whereas Google Translate uses purely statistical translation and has no grammatical rules? I don't know the term at all: where would it go? Bayesian probability? I agree, it is better off deleted. I was just trying to throw out some half-sensible options. Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 10 April 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.

Surrender Dorothy (Oz film)[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. Involved closed given the backlog and with clear consensus after two weeks of listing. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This (potentially) upcoming film isn't mentioned at the target page, and the only reference cited before being the page was redirected dated to 2010, and even that source was just speculation. BDD (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I probably misunderstand, but there is already an article at Surrender Dorothy. IMDB has [this film from 2006] but we don't have Surrender Dorothy (2006). It also has [this film from 2008] but we don't have Surrender Dorothy (2008). It is a bit WP:CRYSTAL and perhaps not notable, these seem to be "straight to trashcan video" titles. But the general format of titles for films, for disambiguation purposes, is the year of production, not the parenthetical (Oz film) like that. Si Trew (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the phrase/scene from the original movie, though it's also a bit of a coatrack for a piece of graffiti. You're right, though; even if we did have an article, it would properly be dabbed (upcoming film) or (2015 film), i.e., an educated guess. --BDD (talk) 00:55, 10 April 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.

Several redirects to Laser Interferometer Space Antenna[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 Gravitational observatory to Gravitational-wave detector, no consensus on the others. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of these redirects are mentioned in the article, or even mentioned as an alternate name of the target article's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a general term like "gravitational observatory" should link to a specific project. As for the others, they are variants of the previous name for the European Space Agency's eLISA. When it was gong through the process of selection it was known, variously according different documents, under these names; E.g., ngo science objectives. The whole LISA article needs looking at because LISA was just a long-running proposal; now that a modified form of it has been "selected" by ESA, eLISA, this should probably be spun off into a separate article. It doesn't make sense for both concepts to be in the same article; eLISA is descended from LISA, but it is not LISA. In that case the last three redirects should point to the eLISA article. I have mentioned this on the Spaceflight project to get more opinions. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ChiZeroOne: it took me a moment to figure out the name of the "eLISA" article you are referring to: are you referring to the article currently named "LIGO"? Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ChiZeroOne: specifically section LIGO#NGO (New Gravitational Wave Observatory)? Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no dedicated article on eLISA at present. The main article for both LISA and eLISA is the LISA article. This is bizarre as eLISA is the mission that is moving forward, whereas the LISA concept is dead. That's why I said eLISA should be spun-off from the LISA article. Yes the NGO listed in the LIGO article is what later became the eLISA project. To be fair, as Mangoe notes below, the alternative names for eLISA are relatively generic even if factually correct. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, NGO was the name of the space-based gravitational-wave mission that was proposed for ESA's L1 mission selection. The acronym stood for either the Next Gravitational-wave Observatory or the New Gravitational-wave Observatory at various points in its development, with the official title being New. The name was universally regarded as terrible, hence the name was changed to eLISA for the L2/L3 selection. The eLISA concept has the same deign as NGO, therefore, the redirect should go to eLISA. I would encourage them to be kept, since there is potential for these names to be confusing and thus be something that people wish to look up. Whether eLISA has its own page or is kept as part of the LISA page is a different question. eLISa is currently only a concept and may change to something resembling LISA in the future. The set of designs based upon LISA are known as LISA-like or the LISA family, or similar. Hence it might be worth having just one page. This would prevent there being many pages for slight permutations of the design for missions that are never launched. LISA is not dead, it has just evolved (hence the name of eLISA). The references on the LIGO page are irrelevant and should be removed. The links at the bottom of the page to other detectors should be sufficient. — BobQQ (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems good to me (the redirect, not the deletion). The only difference between an observatory and a detector, is that the main goal of the former is to do astronomy using gravitational waves, while the latter is to just detect them (not that that is easy) and measure their properties. No-one makes this distinction in general and the terms can be safely used interchangeably. — BobQQ (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's too technical a term. I know what Laser stands for and I know what an interferometer is, and indeed have used both, and indeed have used a laser interferometer to detect a fault in a mile of fibre optic cable I just payed out and a stoat chewed through, but the thing is to assume readers are intelligent but ignorant (in the nicest sense), which is why they come to an encyclopaeddia. I no expert on these matters but please keep in mind, what are people likely to search for? It is not a question of whether it is "right" it is a question of whether it is a likely search term. Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, NGO and LISA are proper nouns, so the technical level is irrelevant. People shall search for the terms as they are the names of missions (or mission concepts). — BobQQ (talk) 12:05, 4 April 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, BDD (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They are not proper nouns they are abbreviations (one is an acronym, which most people these days seem to use to mean abbrevation and it drives me nuts). But there is LISA (disambiguation) – and it is mentioned there. NGO is a redirect to non-governmental organisation, a quango (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation) although those two are not hatnoted between the two. There is NGO (disambiguation) and that is hatnoted from NGO; Next Gravitational-Wave Observatory is not listed there yet. LISA redirects to the DAB page at Lisa. It's already at that DAB (although oddly LISA (programming language) isn't, unless I missed, and should be added after we get consensus). The fact that one space agency uses NGO to mean a certain abbreviation is not very useful; I worked on an experimental missile project called NLAW but that is not here (although checking that, it is also WP:TWODABS and could just as well be served with hatnoting). I am quite happy to do the gnoming but we need consensus first. Si Trew (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant New Gravitational-wave Observatory and Laser Interferometer Space Antenna are proper nouns. I was being lazy in not typing them out, but I can see how confusion arises. They are the names of missions. Those names may or may not be simple or descriptive or good by some other criterion, but that is what they are called, what they are referred to in the literature and what people will search for. — BobQQ (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I must have completely missed your point. Those are proper nouns, sure, and defence/defense and government do seem to have this habit of coming up with totally longwinded names for things, but my name is not dropped in literary circles when someone says "brevity", either.
I'm with you, Redirect Gravitational observatory to Gravitational-wave detector and delete the rest, although even then it might be best to list it with its full name at the DAB for NGO (disambiguation) and Lisa so that a search will bring it up for people searching that way. Si Trew (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we must have some means of tracing what happened to NGO. The mission was called that for about a year for the L1 mission selection. Therefore, there will be references from that period to a mission that seems to have disappeared. That's the sort of thing that people often want to look up. What ever happened to NGO? The mission was just renamed to eLISA. That only takes two seconds to explain. It only requires a sentence (or two) to be included on the page, but can clear up lots of confusion. eLISA is NGO, they just changed the name following the unsuccessful L1 mission selection. All science written specifically for NGO is immediately applicable to eLISA (well, it's current design), with no modification. — BobQQ (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ngo "The New Gravitational wave Observatory (NGO) is a space mission {... [that] was the result of the reformulation, in 2011, of the LISA mission. In May 2012, NGO was not selected by the SPC to continue into the definition phase.
  • lisa "During the reformulation exercise LISA became NGO."
But that seems a bit WP:PRIMARY.
There is paper published by NASA (and various other science sites):
  • Numata, Kenji; Camp, Jordan. "Precision laser development for interferometric space missions NGO, SGO, and GRACE Follow-On" (PDF). NASA. p. 1. Retrieved 13 April 2013.
That states that "NGO" was "Formerly LISA" in the abstract on the first page. However that PDF is just the first page abstract and does not have more details. Si Trew (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is all correct. I think I've explained that all above, let me know if anything is not clear. If we need references, I'm sure I could find as many as required (if someone could tell me where citations are needed). I guess I might as well get around to updating the page while I'm at it, there's never enough time... For now, the eLISA white paper should answer most things [1]. That was submitted for the ESA L2/3 mission selection and so was written before the science case was accepted. — BobQQ (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not peer-reviewed (yet), but fortuitously appeared today and so should be completely up-to-date: Space-borne Gravitational Wave Observatories; arXiv:1404.3136. — BobQQ (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is already peer-reviewed as it was accepted to published in GRG. (The doi is not live yet though)TR 21:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and ELISA already has an article and several redirects for some genetic research, which eLISA redirects to. Elisa is a DAB at which ELISA (satellite) is an entry. Si Trew (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed, but action needed. If the discussion is closed per the votes above, the lede of Laser Interferometer Space Antenna would need to be updated to explain the alternate name "Next Gravitational Wave Observatory" in one way or another, possibly with a reference, such as TimothyRias states above (due to the fact that this discussion is currently happening). Anyways, thanks TimothyRias, BobQQ, and SimonTrew for essentially sorting out the confusion behind those redirects. @Mangoe: since you had opted for deletion, do you have any input about the aforementioned suggestion? Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that since this discussion started, a rudimentary history section has been added to the article that at least explains some of the names that have been used for the project. At some point something may be added to the lede as well.TR 22:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've quickly added a mention of NGO to the second paragraph. I'l try to get around to expanding things soon. — BobQQ (talk) 08:49, 17 April 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.

Crimean Anschluss[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. WJBscribe (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RFD#D3 and WP:RNEUTRAL for using a very unlikely term with the intention of equating Russia with Nazi Germany.--Kathovo talk 08:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:RNEUTRAL permits non-neutral terms for re-directs if they are established. According to this article[4], "this word has now entered the Russian political vocabulary as “Putsch” did in August 1991", indicating that it has become established at least in Russian political discourse (note that August Putsch is also a re-direct). Indeed other sources have used the term, for example:
Therefore it is not unreasonable to have the term as a redirect, per WP:RFD#KEEP it aid searches on certain terms, for example, if someone sees "Crimean Anschluss" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the 2014 Crimean crisis article. --Nug (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly acceptable as a redirect. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 2 April 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, BDD (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nug and above. It's not a question of neutrality (that is for articles, not redirects) but simply whether it is a likely search term. If it is widely reported as such, it should have the redirect. If not, not. Si Trew (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The more I think about it, the less comfortable I am with this redirect. Compare to the outcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 30#Europe's last dictatorship where similar and (IMO) more common terms were deleted. This term is sensationalistic and probably just the product of an active news cycle. It's too inflammatory, and its likely usefulness in the future too little, to justify keeping. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with "Europe's last dictatorship", though it wasn't articulated, is that it was too ambiguous, since it is not really certain whether the target of that redirect is really in fact Europe's last (there could be others in the future), if in fact really is a "dictatorship" at all. On the other hand a source states that this term "Crimean Anschluss" has now entered the Russian political vocabulary as “Putsch” did in August 1991, hence it has moved beyond the news cycle. And certainly there is no denying that comparisons have been made between the Austrian Anshluss and what occurred in Crimea[5]. In fact a Moscow university professor was fired over making an academic comparison[6]. Heck, even Google Images returns a result for "Crimean Anschluss", so it is not an unreasonable search term in Wikiepdia. --Nug (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and that's why I'm with you (Nug). It's reliably sourced and Nug has brought plenty of WP:RS here to prove the point. The fact is might be objectionable to some does not matter, we are WP:NOTCENSORED. Is it a likely search term? If it is, it stays, if not, it goes. That's all there is to it. Si Trew (talk) 10:41, 13 April 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.

Next Hungarian parliamentary election[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 22#Next Hungarian parliamentary election

March 32[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) 16:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No use, except as a joke TheChampionMan1234 09:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per TheChampionMan1234. WP:DYK for example tends to store things for April Fool's Day, but although intially misleading in the way of a cryptic crossword ("I may not say what I mean, but I always mean what I say", an early compiler wrote) they always actually lead to an article that is factual and well-referenced, it is only the DYK hook that is misleading but even the hook is accurate, just deliberately obscure or wrongfooting. This redirect, in the alternate, is just simply wrong: there is no March 32 in any calendar I know of: Julian, Gregorian, Roman, Jewish, Arabic or otherwise there is no March 32. In any case, we are past April 1 now so how long do you want this to last? Si Trew (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to April 1 and place a {{R from incorrect name}} template on the redirect. This could serve as a useful redirect for those who are not familiar with either the months or the amount of days on the Gregorian calendar. Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: Even though I have voted "retarget" on this RFD, I would rather this RFD be closed as delete rather than no consensus, given the fact that this is this redirect's 2nd nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I checked, for comparison. Here you go: January 32, February 30, March 32, April 31, May 32, June 31, July 32, August 32, September 31, October 32, November 31, December 32. It seems about half-and-half. Of those, February 30 has its own article saying it occurs in some calendars but not the Gregorin; the others that are blue redirect to the articles for the months. Si Trew (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's also an article at February 31. But I am not going to make an exhaustive search because I am exhausted myself. There was a time when people always linked dates (it still happens in e.g. FR:WP and HU:WP ) but that is now strongly discouraged at EN:WP. So these might be vestiges of those days. The articles of course should stand, but the redirects seem a bit useless. Si Trew (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I might as well add that this is actually the 2nd time this redirect has been nominated for RFD: the first nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 26#March 32. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im not so sure about some of them, but the '<month> 32' redirects should IMO be deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just to tie these together, there is a similar discusion here at RfD for April 12, for the redirect for April 31. There, Steel1943 has already tied it the other way back. Si Trew (talk) 10:46, 13 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_9&oldid=1142587405"