Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 14, 2014.

Stephen Trimble[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) 17:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable journalist linked to a website he works for, clearly cant link the name of every journalist to a website, paper or journal. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Milborne. How many redirects would we have to make? I say delete Ned1230|Whine|Stalk

  • Keep I argue that he is notable because he is cited in a large number of Wikipedia articles. I am intending to create a biographical article for him when I have collected enough information. Biscuittin (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is difficult to see that the subject is notable, because his journalist news pieces are are used as a reference in a small number of aviation articles doesnt make him notable. Most of the references to Stephen Trimble on wikipedia are an American author not the same person but he would have more claim to an article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a problem, once the article were created, then one or the other would be WP:PRIMARY and the other could be hatnoted, per WP:TWODABS. Since neither of them have bios, there is no problem tere at the moment. Si Trew (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to hear opinions from a larger number of people. Biscuittin (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I had a shuftie on the Interweb to find references to this person but my favourite search engine doesn't bring much up for the person himself. For example here and here. Now, I have edited and contributed to tens of thousands of articles at Wikipedia over the years but I am quite rightly not notable. Sure, he should be attributed, but of himself he is not notable – assuming he even exists, since it could just be a [pen name]] or house name for Flight International's articles. Si Trew (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirect, expand the article. Start by expanding the article with the information you have, and we can go from there. The person should be notable in his own right, not by affiliation, and a redirect from a person to a magazine is not encyclopaedic. I often quote Trimble and I would contribute to his article if I could find more than a few notable entries, but it seems the photographer and actor are more notable. TGCP (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He seems to have been used lately by The Guardian (very brief bio/cv here) but also acts as a talking head for e.g. the quote in the BBC News article How do you track a plane? here (both about the recent disappearance of Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_MH370. I stll maintain that does not make him of himself notable. Simon Trew is a distinguished military historian working at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst for many years (not me, I don't and am in no way distinguished) who has published loads of books and given loads of lectures etc and he doesn't have an article though I think he should but I never got round to making one. That is just an example that I happen to know about because he is my namesake so when his name crops up on the telly or in WP:MILHIST here I tend to do a double-take. But journalists in themselves are not necessarily notable. It is simply wrongfooting people if he is either employed by the grauniad or is a freelancer who writes for several publications (Flight International for example) but there is nothing interesting from an encyclopaedic point of view to say about him himself. I am sure his mother loves him, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. Si Trew (talk) 01:14, 24 March 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.

Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (49 BC)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 12#2014 April 12#Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (49 BC)

Reflist[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. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a bad idea to mix article namespace with template namespace. Magioladitis (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes it is a cross-namespace redirect but it has a long history and has been argued over the years several times. If you can think of a better target for it, fine, but WP:CNRs are not in themselves harmful. Sure this is a bit of bookkeeping but editors kinda rely on it. Si Trew (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Si Trew this redirect was created last month. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Si Trew. This is an example of a cross-namespace redirect (CNR) that we keep around to help new editors. We want to make referencing an article as easy as possible, and this takes them to the page that explains the template and how it is used. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with that one. Personally I find adding the references, even when one has found good online reliable sources, one of the hardest chores when creating or expanding an article, and it is very daunting I think to a new editor and they then tend to just throw in raw URLs and stuff. So anything that helps, even if it is in a sense "wrong", I think all to the good. Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For example {{cite}} has a different form from {{citation}} which is different from {{harvnb}}, which differs from {{cite newspaper The Times}} and so on. These are just part of Wikipedia's legacy and there is not much one can do about it (unless one fancies breaking millions of references by radically changing the templates) but to have good documentation and to be able to find it easily is vital even for (if I may say so myself) an experienced editor, let alone a new one. Si Trew (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm voting in favor as the person who created the redirect. Any time I look up a word of Wiki code that I see in another entry, and can't find it explained, I see an opportunity to improve the site for less experienced editors. In this case, the concept of adding |2 and |3 to split the reflist into columns was a new thing for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtempleton (talk • contribs) 21:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia's references template isn't the only place in the world with a list of references, nor is it the only place on Wikipedia where such a thing is described, there being many help pages and guidelines for referencing on Wikipedia. If we're supposed to be helping "new editors", this isn't the logical place to point this, it would point to a help page or a guideline. And there's still <references/> which isn't {{reflist}} -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. @Timtempleton: if you can't find something explained, you should find someone who knows how to explain it, or can tell you where it is explained, at the village pump. If the explanation you find isn't good enough, be bold and improve it. Contaminating mainspace search results by creating a mish-mash of ad-hoc cross-namespace redirects is absolutely not a way to make things simpler for new editors. Our templating system is confusing enough for new editors already already without an additional layer of uncertainty as to how you can or can't reference a template by its namespace. — Scott • talk 16:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Scott: - I just visited the village pump and don't think wading through that page (pun intended) is an easier or faster way to learn to correctly use Wikipedia. Ironically, you can search for Village Pump (technical) and will get redirected to the help section for the Village Pump. This is the same principle as what I did with the reflist redirect. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtempleton (talk • contribs) 23:23, 4 March 2014
      • Thanks, but I prefer the experience of having spent over a decade writing software for a living over the advice of a proverb. You're making the classic beginners' mistake of randomly sticking things together because you think it's "helpful". In the long term, that approach only causes technical debt. You don't have to "wade through" the Village Pump (by the way, that's not what "ironically" means) - normally, a question that you post there will get answered in a very short time. Have the common courtesy to either put in the effort into finding the documentation that you need, or wait only a few minutes for one of our many, many volunteers to personally help you out with an answer to your question. (While you're at it, I also recommend reading "How to ask questions the smart way".) By the way, you also need to sign your comments. — Scott • talk 17:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been writing software for a living for thirty years (oh my! I feel so old), but I don't think that carries much weight here. Yes, there is a technical debt and that should always be borne in mind when creating or "improving" software, but we both know that maintaining legacy software is a bit of a black art and a balance of judgements between all kinds of opposing forces, and it is the same with Wikipedia, which itself is "old" in terms of a software lifespan. It depends on whether you take the Raymond Chen approach of trying to maintain things and then add all kinds of help into what is admittedly a mess, or the Apple Computer approach of throwing out the baby with the bathwater and expecting software writers (or in Wikipedia's case, by analogy, editors) to have to do it all over again. Now, references are hard because all the various templates grew up kinda independently and so there are lots of inconsistences between them. But we can't just throw them away and start again, so that anything that helps new editors, or even old hands, to find the docs they need when they can't get a reference to look or work quite right, in my opinion is worth keeping. Si Trew (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Scott (talk · contribs) Google's dictionary defines irony as "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result." I found it amusing that you chose a site to bolster your argument to delete reflist, which through the use of its own redirect had the opposite effect. Does that not qualify as irony? The goal is to make things easier and improve the site - like with the Affordable Care Actin, it's easy to criticize actions, but harder to show how your alternative is better. I will not take it personally no matter what the consensus is, but at the very least the site is better now that we have raised and collectively debated the issue. But thanks for reminding me to sign my posts. Apparently this is common, so luckily the site bots have been programmed to autosign unsigned posts. Timtempleton (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry I forgot to sign, and I had noticed I hadn't, but I don't like to change things once they are posted since I don't think that is fair on other editors. I was kinda expecting SignBot to fill it in for me but I don't like to change even my own comments after I post them, since that is unfair (in my opinion) on other editors. Si Trew (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for irony, do you mean comic irony, dramatic irony, or even ironing? The word is so loose on its own to be meaningless. But I suppose that is Epistemology. Si Trew (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hang on, the comment that apparently I signed is not my comment. I know I forgot to sign a comment, but that is not mine, and my signature is merged with (I think) Scott's comment. Si Trew (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see, Timtempleton with an edit you have templatede me in and thanks very much for the thanks, thanks also to you for making Wikipedia better. Because you put it in as a template it looked like I was signing another's comments (with {{User}} and I and I can only think the best thing is to take that out. I don't like to alter discussions in progress but that is misleading (well it mislead me) Si Trew (talk) 21:32, 10 March 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) 16:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary, confusing redirect between namespaces.--RadioFan (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was placed under the relist notice at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 3; I've moved it here. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 20 March 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.

Phone patch[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. If this might be a better title for the article currently at Autopatch, I'll leave it to interested editors to discuss at WP:RM. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AT&T High Seas Service contains a (piped) link to patch, which redirects to Autopatch. The redirect isn't, per-se, incorrect, but you end up with an article talking about an obsolete manual process linking to a description of the automated system which replaced it. Unclear what the right solution is, so I'm throwing this out on RfD for discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a more complicated topic than I thought, so maybe what's needed is an umbrella article discussing ways various two-way radio services can access the PSTN and perhaps vice versa, pointing of course to other related articles. knoodelhed (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2014 (UT

:Keep. "Patch" in the United Kingdom by electronics engineers is generally meant to be a bit of a workaround or a diversion on a bit of wire (purple wire was once the phrase) that took a wire out of one place into another. It was called "purple wire" because a decent engineer would use a wire of a different colour so someone coming afterwards could see that it was a patch. I have had a phone patch at my previous address with taking the pairs off and reconnecting them by someone actually technically illegally but to patch in the pairs to a new connexion. (I helped him put the ladder up to do it so I am equally guilty.)

This to me seems not WP:WORLDWIDE since it obviously has different meanings in the U.S. from the U.K. I think the article as it is, as a stub, should stand, but be marked not WP:WORLDIWIDE because I think it is primarily U.S. that calls it that. Si Trew (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and taking the article itself to AfD. Its a mess of WP:OVERLINK, WP:WORLDWIDE and just a bloody mess frankly. When the article goes the redirect can go. Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Took the article itself to Afd with [1]. Bizarelly I am an inclusionsist, I just created three artices in the last week, but this is WP:OVERLINK and WP:RS and should not exist. When it goes, the redirect can go. Si Trew (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Telephone exchange. Sorry, I keep changing my mind. This is a bit of a weird one and the piped link doesn't help. Phone patch should redirect to Telephone exchange] where there is a nice pic in the top infobox of a telephone operator "patching in" on a manual exchange. I am a a bit short of reference books at the moment but dictionary.com at sense 18 (verb) has "patch" as "to make a connection between radio circuits, telephone lines, etc. (often followed by in or into ): We patched into the ship-to-shore conversation." here and that would be the sense I would understand it, but it might be a difference between UK and US English, I don't know if it is used in that sense in the US, so it might just be a problem of WP:WORLDWIDE. Si Trew (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending AfD on Autopatch. This should remain either a redirect to autopatch, or even become the primary name for that article (that would be better for internationalisation). Redirecting to telephone exchange would be pointless and misleading. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Andy Dingley. I voted "Keep" at the AFD and came here upon seeing notice of this RFD there. --doncram 13:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's true. In "The history of the telegraph and telephone exchanges" (London, 1912) which I don't have with me published on Paternoster Row the author describes a Strauger, that is, the relay combination that takes a pulse dial to connect onto a multi-line circuit, as an "auto patch" and in his closing remarks at the back of the book says it will never catch on, these new-fangled automatic exchanges, make the subscribers do all the work while the operators sit idle (my paraphrase). Where to retarget? Si Trew (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the proposer at the AfD I have asked for it to go Speedy Keep. The fact that the phrase is not in my vocabulary does not mean that it won't be in others, but perhaps it is cheifly US? But we can all work together to make the article better and sort that out. Si Trew (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree with Andy Dingley by the way to reverse the redirect and make phone patch the article and Autopatch the redirect. The article needs some work but I tend to stand off doing so when something is under discussion since it is not fair on other editors if the article we are talking about is moving under their feet. Si Trew (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment phones aren't the only thing with autopatching, there's a utility in Unix that does that as well for source code, and what I thought of when I saw "autopatch" -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 01:46, 4 March 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) 16:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, mostly aimed at 70.50. Then if it has other senses, that confirms my opinion that it should be reversed so that phone patch sits at primary. autopatch can then be hatnoted etc. Si Trew (talk) 05:27, 15 March 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.

Feral Calf[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. [Additional comments.] The Bushranger One ping only 02:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, unlikely search term, connection to target unclear. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget There is a comic strip called Feral Calf (an example here) and drawn by Casey Sorrow, who is mentioned at the target as someone with whom Eric Monster Milliken regularly contributes. "Feral Calf" could do with better sources at both articles, but that's another matter. I am not familiar with this cartoon or these artists, or how notable they are, to me they seem like people who have not really established GNG but that is another matter and not one for RfD. Si Trew (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally it should be mentioned at the target page (i.e., Sorrow's). Currently it isn't. --BDD (talk) 00:53, 8 March 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) 16:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Retarget to feral organism. Weak since only feral cattle was mentioned there, not necessarily their feral calves.--Lenticel (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought of that, but could a calf ever go feral? It needs its mother's milk. I suppose if the mother is feral then the calf could be considered feral too, but that seems something of a stretch; I am ignorant/impartial of this strip, which I guess is not widely syndicated in my part of the world, but isn't the whole point of calling it "Feral Calf" that it is a illogical? It should go to one of the two authors of the strip. Si Trew (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem about choosing one of the authors is the question about who deserves the redirect. I'm leaning more on delete actually if my weak retarget suggestion isn't feasible since at least it would encourage the creation of the strip's article.--Lenticel (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly to encourage creation but also with the lack of a clear target. Eric Monster Millikin and Casey Sorrow were both involved in the strip, so it doesn't make much sense to try to pick one or the other. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lenticel and BDD. If there are two co-authors and it is mentioned at neither target it might as well be WP:REDLINK to encourage creation of the article. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 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.

BJP in Haryana[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) 16:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre use of a redirect. The BJP is the BJP. Haryana is irrelevant and a most unlikely entry point Fiddle Faddle 13:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Excuse me for my ignorance, but what is the BJP then, when you say the BJP is the BJP? Si Trew (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as harmless. Right, so BJP redirects to Bharatiya Janata Party. Now I can think of a lot of other places it could redirect to (Buster Jones Patterson, Bread Jelly and Peanut-Butter or whatever) but that is where it does redirect and presumably you are happy with that and consensus has been reached to redirect it there.
It's a bit odd to then complain about a redirect to the same article that is doing no harm. Have I misunderstood? In the United Kingdom, often on the election ticket the candidate will be listed as The Conservative and Unionist Party or The Labour and Co-operative Society to mean "Labour Party (UK)" or "Conservative Party (UK)". Until the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 we didn't even have the parties marked on the slips (and when it got introduced the first thing someone did was put himself down as a Literal Democrat and very nearly won the seat), just the names of the candidates, so the candidate with the name nearest the top tended to get more votes from the forgetful. So, just mark it as {{R from alternate name}}. Si Trew (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand. The location is not now and will never be a useful entry point. The BJP is the useful entry point. it is not so much harmless as useless. Fiddle Faddle 14:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC) q[reply]
Right, but the two terms are coterminous. Unless it is doing positive harm for it being redirected elsewhere, it might as well stay where it is. For if not, suggest where else it should go. Si Trew (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And BJP already redirects there, as I said earlier. Si Trew (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
stats are that it has had zero hits. In that way I should say Delete. But it seems to me this was brought here slightly, and maybe not intentionally but seemed to be, by being someone in favour of a particular political party. Si Trew (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in politics in this part of the world. It's a useless redirect. Fiddle Faddle 11:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might be aware that Haryana has 25,353,081 Population and they send representative in the Parliament from the state in 10 numbers. This is the topic of large numbers interest and BJP is the Largest party and people has right to know the names and their background of the persons not about one but about any representative from Haryana who is represnting BJP and is Leader of Masses.Rajsector3 (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect remains irrelevant. BJP is the main element. It is pointless and even misleading. It is not about Haryana at all, just redirecting to the BJP. Fiddle Faddle 11:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, in the end, and Delete per User:Timtrent (Fiddle-faddle). Haryana is not mentioned in at the target. Si Trew (talk) 00:49, 24 March 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.

European race[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 25#European race

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_14&oldid=1074238857"