Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 6, 2014.

Кuka[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) 16:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a recently created redirect from an unlikely typo. Gorobay (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To be clear, the first "K" on the redirect is actually a I think Cyrillic K not a Latin K, I am not sure but was rendered the same on my screen (1024x768) in the default fonts (Arial and Courier). I am not sure if this is a plausible typo or not but something is weird here and it is misleading, having copied the "K" I have no idea how to then check out what character it actually is. Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a very useful firefox extension installed called "Character identifier". It reports that the initial letter "К" is indeed a capital Ka (Cyrillic) while the rest of the letters are lowercase Latin glyphs. I would normally regard this as entirely implausible, but the creation comment of "link repair" makes me wonder. I'd like to hear from the creator before passing judgment on this. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. nonsense. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before the redirect was created, there had been a small, non-zero amount of traffic in every month I checked: 6 in 2008-12, 4 in 2009-01, 1 in 2013-12, 30 in 2014-01, 10 in 2014-02. I put Кuka -kuka -uka in a search engine and found a few pages containing the term: [1] (ad for real estate in Rep. of Macedonia), [2] (someone's alias on a Web forum), and [3] (someone's alias). Google Books shows "about 159 results" [4], and among the first 20 there were 9 which genuinely have the Cyrillic "К" followed by Latin "uka". Perhaps Google's scanning software has difficulty distinguishing "К" from "K". —rybec 07:05, 12 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.

Ethical Evil[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) 16:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect for uncommon phrase. Shearonink (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Surely "ethical" and "evil" are antonyms? Si Trew (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment no, not antonyms, if you have separate ethical and moral systems, then they are not evaluated on the same scales, but it looks strange. If we don't need the redirect, then it should be deleted because it's just going to become a philosophical debate as to what the proper target is. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, I think unfortunately it has to be a bit of a philosophical debate since there are a lot of these and either they should all be deleted as a job lot ot have to be argued each on their merits, and I can't see how we can do that without having some kind of moral or philosophical argument, which unfortunately is rather navel-gazing. Si Trew (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note also that the second word has caps ("Ethical Evil" not "Ethical evil") as it should do, but there's no point making another R just to make matters worse. Si Trew (talk) 16:14, 8 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.

Second Crimean War[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) 16:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This term distinguishes the Crimean War from another war some people predict will occur (examples of its usage: [5] and [6]), and about which we don't yet have a Wikipedia article. One editor anticipated that 2014 Crimean crisis would become an article about this predicted war, and moved the article to Second Crimean War. Currently the term "Second Crimean War" doesn't appear in the 2014 Crimean crisis article. —rybec 15:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was saying to the missus the other day "I bet the British already have ships on the way, they will be keeping an eye out, just you wait and see, they'll be rounding them up from Gibraltar" and things like that. That is pure speculation on my part and has no place in an encylopaedia, which is why I didn't put it in an encylopaedia. Si Trew (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused term for something which in any case should not be called by this name, as there is no Crimean War currently, and what there is does not resemble the Crimean War. Delete both first and second. Debresser (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete would greatly depend on how you counted conflicts in the Crimea. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, user BetterThanSuchAsYou (talk · contribs) renamed this article without consensus and I moved it back. The residual redirect should be cleaned up. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should have been WP:BRD but since nobody actually discusses anything at an article's talk page any more, it ends up here. Si Trew (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per policies already quoted, and per comments here. And the only "Second Crimean War" I can find is some 10 year old (and not particularly notable) web comic, not the crisis linked here. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:27, 8 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.

First Crimean War[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) 16:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This term was a seldom-used name for the Russo-Turkish War [7] until March 2014, when people began to use it to distinguish the Crimean War from another war they predict will occur. Is the new usage established? —rybec 15:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per my comments on the above redirect. There is no need to determine whether there will be another "Crimean War" until it actually happens, again if it does at all. Even if it happens mere hours after these redirects are deleted, such redirects as these are absolutely forbidden. LazyBastardGuy 18:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment such redirects are not forbidden, absolutely or otherwise. If the redirects are plausible search terms, for example if reliable sources are using them, then they are good redirects. Regardless of whether they are correct or neutral. See WP:RNEUTRAL. (I haven't yet looked to see whether these specific terms are being used or not). Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LazyBastardGuy (concurrently with the one above, "Second Crimean War"). "Second Crimean War" is WP:CRYSTAL, then there is no need to DAB this one and per WP:TITLE it can just sit at the shorter title, there is no need for these redirect. There is not, for example, the "First Falklands War" or the First Suez Crisis" since obviously Falklands War and Suez Crisis stand on their own feet and there is no need to DAB them like this. Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this forgets the conquest of Crimea, and other conflicts. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, user BetterThanSuchAsYou (talk · contribs) renamed this article without consensus and I moved it back. The residual redirect should be cleaned up. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should have been WP:BRD but since nobody actually discusses anything at an article's talk page any more, it ends up here. Si Trew (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Si, and the bold/disruptive move was reverted. But that still leaves a redundant redirect at the out-of-process title, which will need an admin action to get rid of it. Is there a quicker way to do that, other than come here? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were quite right to bring it here in my opinion. I just find it confusing if redirects then continue to change after they are listed here - there is nothing saying they shouldn't be but personally I tend to stand off editing it, since of course what happens is (per mine above) other editors' comments become out of date while the discussion is still in progress. But totally agree with you it should be delete and thanks for finding the reference to the comic book, I think that is helpful in emphasising why there could be an "nth Crimean War" but it is not a common name for it, so really it's just WP:TITLE. Si Trew (talk) 08:24, 9 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.

Poor ethics[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) 16:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded redirect for a two-word phrase. Also, this phrase does not appear to mean the same thing as "Vice". Shearonink (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:Retarget to ethics as likely search term. Si Trew (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking up the article stats, it has absolutely zero hits for all of its existence. 14:28, 8 March 2014 (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.

Ball handling skills[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) 16:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly an appropriate redirect: at most could perhaps be a disambiguation page JZCL 11:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed this is not appropriate, but the closest thing I can find we have is Ball games (where Ball sports redirects) and I don't think that's good either. I can see that this would be a good redirect for us to have if there is some information we can point it to, as it's a term used in several sports (rugby, soccer and presumably water polo at the very least). If there are articles about ball skills (ball skills and ball handling are both red links) in various sports then a dab is a good idea, but if not then a reluctant delete I think. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Thryduulf, you would think there would be, but since there ain't I'd concur with that. It's a common phrase in the UK for learning how to use one's feet in soccer, but since it is not mentioned there then I would concur with Thryduulf that it is a reluctant delete unless someone can find a better target. Si Trew (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is even stupider than Opposite of Moral Good is. Nedgreiner 22:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it is stupid for someone wanting to discuss a redirect to bring it to Redirects for Discussion? Si Trew (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first thing I thought of was baseball, clearly not waterpolo; then there's football(gridiron/soccer), basketball, etc... -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:59, 9 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.

Mal-hearted[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. You can't take the sky from me. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect for a word that was not in any dictionaries consulted by nominator. Shearonink (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a common alternative expression for "evil". WWGB (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A nonexistent word for evil. Nedgreiner 22:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep'. There is a published poem "King Richard The Malhearted", for starters:
Bonura, Larry S. "King Richard The Malhearted, or There is No Peace". Engulfed from Within: A Lifetime of Poems. p. 91. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
This might just be a self-published thing for Kindle (I can't find that the book in print from Amazon, etc) but would tend to indicate that the expression is used, and I see no harm in it being kept. Sure, that doesn't have the hyphen in it, but then the case is to create a redirect also at malhearted, I think the meaning at least in poesy would be fairly obvious and a fairly likely search term. Si Trew (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or create as a disambiguation page). It is unclear what the appropriate target should be, but it is almost certainly not evil. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per AR. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at the stats, apart from the last day or two when obviously it's us looking through it as we discuss it, it has had exactly zero hits, so delete as unlikey search term. Si Trew (talk) 08:38, 9 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.

Opposite of moral good[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) 16:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect of an entire phrase. Shearonink (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a common alternative expression for "evil". WWGB (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is possibly the stupidest redirect I've ever seen. Delete it. Nedgreiner 22:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are bigger issues here. Immorality and morality are separate articles both with multiple issues tagged, so it has to go to one or the other assuming it goes somewhere at all. In the absence of consensus for combining the two articles (which would seem sensible to me) it might as well stay where it stands. I am surprised there is not a redirect at moral good, but since there isn't I am not going to create one while this is under discussion. Si Trew (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or create article at moral good, and retarget). Should have same target as moral good; as neither immorality nor morality is an appropriate target for both, delete. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit short of references at the moment but didnt John Stuart Mill define these kinda things as "Moral goods"?
There are plenty of references on the Interweb if somebody could be bothered to search, which patently they don't they just hit a button and bring it to RfD without doing their homework. Si Trew (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is this for example Seifert, Josef (10 May 1999). "Moral Goodness Alone Is 'Good Without Qualifications': A Phenomenological Interpretation and Critical Development of some Kantian and Platonic Ethical Insights into Moral Facts which Contribute to the Moral Education of Humanity". Internationale Akademie fur Philosophy. Retrieved 8 March 2014. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help). It is just laziness to hit a button to list something for an XfD without doing some homework and people should come to any XfD with clean hands. (Oh, I forgot, I actually improved and added references to the article at clean hands). Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete amorality/immorality/morality is not tightly bound to the concept of "moral good", since the practice of immorality can result in outcomes that are not the opposite of moral good, for immoral reasons, a moral good can still result. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:02, 9 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.

Actions through Vice[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) 16:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. Shearonink (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a common alternative expression for "evil". WWGB (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree.Nedgreiner22:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly plausible search term. Si Trew (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Marginally plausible search term, but implausible target. Perhaps retarget to vice? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That retarget is itself problematic. I presume in US English means what the PRIMARY means but in the UK it more commonly means bench vice without qualification of "bench", so I am not sure that it should go straight there but perhaps to the DAB at Vice (disambiguation)? Si Trew (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is no good either cos there is Vise and Vice and you have Noah Webster to blame for that. Where to put it? Oh what a tangled web we unweave, our wonders to employ. Si Trew (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unrelated concepts. If your vice is to go smoking, is this evil? Your action through vice is smoking. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, assuming smoking is a vice (I am a smoker myself and see it as a pleasure a nuisance and an expensive hobby, but yes it is a vice) I think you have hit the nail on the thumb in differentiating "vice" from "actions through vice". In that example, I suppose you would take it to passive smoking (not that I am suggesting that you are suggesting that, just for the example if "smoking" is the vice then "passive smoking" is the action through vice) and that's obviously not right. Since it can't really be put anywhere sensible, it should be deleted. Si Trew (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides not being a common phrase, it doesn't particularly make sense; it sounds like a warped political campaign slogan. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: before its creation, it had zero hits in the months I checked on stats.grok.se. I also looked at "actions through vice" (without the capital "V") which likewise got no hits in any of the months I checked, for example last month. A Web search turned up, as the only result outside Wikipedia, http://www.derby.ac.uk/news/special-report-inside-governing-council, where the phrase has a completely different meaning: "It is this elite group which guides and manages the future direction of the University, managing its governance and holding the executive to account for its actions through Vice-Chancellor Professor John Coyne." —rybec 06:14, 12 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.

Bad morality[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) 16:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect of obscure phrase. Shearonink (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a common alternative expression for "evil". WWGB (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But Amorality is just a lack of morals, in an inanimate object because it can't have one and in an animate one, kinda a refusal or deiberate ignorance of morals, that is to say not being immoral or bad morality but just refusing to accept those of a given culture/society. I am not sure that's a good one either. Si Trew (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many would claim the lack of morals is bad morals. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (preferred) or Retarget to Morality. Immorality doesn't seem to fit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Evil is defined by morality, "bad morality" defines evil differently. Just because the system of morals is bad does not directly result in evil on someone else's morality scales either. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Elbonia is judged by other countries to have laws that are "bad morality", i.e. encourage people to do things wrongly in the way that it is looked from by societies outside (the United Nations, for example). Does that then mean people not accepting those morals have "bad morality" or "good morality"? The fact is that people make judgements according to their own belief systems of what they think is right or wrong and if they are following their own morality that is not "bad morality" in my book. I just don't think there is a good target for this. Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 9 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.

Bor (Elder Scrolls)[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 speedy deleted at sole author's request. — Scott • talk 16:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this, Bor is not a major character at all, nor famous. I had a brain fart when I created this page. It might as well be deleted.Nedgreinertalk22:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close, Bor is not a redirect but a disambiguation page. Si Trew (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It seems as though the nominator meant to nominate Bor (Elder Scrolls). For that reason, I have fixed this request on behalf of the nominator, and notified them on their talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I strike out mine then.Bor (Elder Scrolls) is not listed at that DAB Bor but presumably if it wants to be deleted by author then it is pointless listing it there then unlisting it after this closes (that is not to assume that it will close as delete but to assume the desire of the nominator). Si Trew (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned at target. Having this redirect will trick people into fruitlessly searching the page for discussion of the term. Siuenti (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable in-game. The Skyrim Wikia even states Bor "...offers no notable dialogue...".--Lenticel (talk) 04:30, 10 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_6&oldid=1138579764"