Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 14[edit]

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

Girl Scouts Eastern Washington & Northern Idaho[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. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion because redirect was replaced. Right user:Jackmcbarn? --evrik (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as nominator and creator of unused redirect. --evrik (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirect resulting from page move; valid search target. This appears to be a declined WP:CSD#G6 which nominator is disputing. I don't think I see a rationale for deletion presented. Ivanvector (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updated: nom has inserted a rationale above my comment now, but I stand by my !vote. WP:RFD
  • Keep There could be external sites that link to this redirect (since it existed long before you moved it). Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're searching for. If this redirect didn't exist it would have to be created. WilyD 12:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It was a typo that should not have been created. The correct redirect is: Girl Scouts Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho. --evrik (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both of these redirects appear to need to exist. Unless I'm totally blind, this redirect has no typo at all. WilyD 15:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • We generally don't use the ampersand in the naming of the articles (for this wikiproject). --evrik (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • But this is a redirect, not an article, so that concern is wholly invalid. (And Wikiproject conventions should be wontly disregarded, unless there's a reason for them, anyways). WilyD 16:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a redirect from a page move; the page lived at this name since 2009. It would be inappropriate to remove the redirect, regardless of it being the wrong title. Besides that, it's a reasonably likely search term, and redirects are cheap. Ivanvector (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a title includes "and" there should almost always be a redirect from the title with "&" and vice versa. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 20 November 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.

Monocot[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 (non-admin closure). I am calling it "no consensus" because there was no clear consensus developed here, however upon requesting assistance from WikiProject Plants a parallel discussion took place which resulted in both Monocot and Monocots being redirected to Monocotyledon, making this Rfd moot. Editors who disagree should continue the discussion at WT:PLANTS. Ivanvector (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page was a redirect to Monocotyledon for twelve years until an IP decided to make a WP:TWODABS page of it. The disambiguation page, however, was inaccurate and misleading. It proposed that Monocot may refer to the clade, Monocots, but this seems like saying that Walru can refer to Walrus or that Mida may refer to Midas, since the name of the clade is Monocots, not a plural of "Monocot". Furthermore, Monocotyledon is the clear primary topic of the term, commonly referred to as "Monocot" and one of the two kinds of plants in the world; the clade, Monocots, is merely one group within Monocotyledon. I propose that the redirect be kept as is, and any perceived ambiguity be addressed in a hatnote. Please note, also, that per WP:NOCONSENSUS, an absence of consensus in favor of the recent change will restore the longstanding stable redirect. bd2412 T 17:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Monocotyledon (it is currently targeted to monocotyledon with no capital), and insert hatnote where appropriate. Specifying target because I'm not sure that the argument is clear, and there appears to be potential for a revert war here. I support nom's rationale, however it was probably not necessary to remind the forum about process. Ivanvector (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not the same. The name of the clade is monocots, btw, not Monocots. Many Wikipedia articles about members of the clade are linked to this redirect which then takes the person reading the article to the monocotyledon article instead of the clade article. A monocot is not "one of two kinds of plants in the world." The clade Monocots or monocots is not "merely one group within Monocotyledon," not even the Wikipedia article, as bad as it is, says/suggests/implies this. A lot of anger at the IP, a lot of nonsense, and no knowledge of the topic, but a determination to keep away anyone who might be able to improve the article. I see now why this major topic is missing from Wikipedia. 67.51.153.238 (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are incorrect links, fix the links. That can be done without setting up a WP:TWODABS page. Also, read WP:TWODABS; disambiguation pages with only two links are discouraged because they are not needed for navigation; a hatnote will perform the navigational function in those circumstances. bd2412 T 21:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
      • My guess is you smell an improvement and are doing your best to chase me off. You could add your misinformation about monocotyledons being one of two groups of plants (good 17th century sources, but 21st century will be a bust for you), and rewrite APG's 15 years of taxonomy to make monocots "merely one group within the monocotyledons," which would be entertaining, but I think Wikipedia wants sources and this you won't even find in the 17th century since you just made it up. But, seems you will block any attempts at improving the science. I can't debate your faith against the factual information. 67.51.153.238 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical question: if monocot redirects to monocotyledon, what happens with pluralized links, like [[monocot]]s?
    • There appear to be hundreds. Some should go to monocots, others to monocotyledons. Making the evil two dab would have given me time to look at each article. I see DB edits up to twenty pages a minute. These edits would require a human to individually decide where to target monocot. It would have taken a lot of time to do correctly.
  • Scientific question: I don't understand from the information provided how monocots and monocotyledon are different. This isn't my area of expertise, but they look like the same thing to me. Under the current naming scheme we have monocotyledon and dicotyledon, yes? And under an obsolete naming system, we instead have monocots and eucots? If I'm anywhere close to right, then the primary topic is clearly monocotyledon, not monocots, and the situation should be dealt with as proposed (keep). Ivanvector (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, monocots and dicots, not eucots, is the old naming system as is monocotyledons and decotyledons. Molecular and morphological studies show that monocotyledons is a clade while dicotyledons is nothing useful taxonomically. The name of clade is monocots, plural, lower case. He new naming system is monocots, eudicots, and basal angiosperms.Our articles have the clade singular, upper case, and named monocotyledons. The articles are bad and confusing. I was trying to correct them and deal in the short term with the problem of so many articles having monocot, singular, for the clade, taking people to monocotyledons. 97.124.161.195 (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, monocot should retarget to monocots as the primary (current scientific usage) target, with a hatnote to monocotyledon. I don't think it's necessary to create a TWODABS page to deal with the problem of some links going to the wrong place, you could use "what links here" to generate a list. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Monocotyledon for example. Ivanvector (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Best would be that people who know so little about a topic that they appear completely ignorant on it (the clade is merely one group in the monocotyledons is a wtf), although this total ignorance could have resulted from trying to learn something from the tragically bad Wikipedia articles, should not interfere and block someone trying to correct errors. Specifically don't make up random, unfounded information and ways simply to stop the editing to improve a bad set of articles as a power play to get rid of someone when a set of articles on a major topic is as bad as these are. While we are debating this, is anyone helping the articles? This is why people with knowledge of the topic aren't editing, they have to engage with people completely ignorant of the subject matter. At least I was willing to read the experts and begin correcting errors. I have stopped, though. It appears safe to retain the bad articles with randomized misinformation for another 12 years. 97.124.161.195 (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TWODABS still applies. We avoid making disambiguation pages with only two links for a reason. A disambiguation page is merely a navigational device, one that is not necessary where navigation can be accomplished in a hatnote. We do not create disambiguation pages for the purpose of generating errors to be fixed (as pointed out above, the "What links here" page will serve your purpose. bd2412 T 15:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't create it to generate errors to be fixed. I added the additional information because there were so many errors already and I thought this would help others who became completely lost to the point of thinking that the monocots are a group of the monocotyledons and focus on the most trivial aspect of a bad set of articles and make bureaucratic pronouncements based upon random misinformation, anything to prevent a fix. Is it obvious I don't care anymore about the actual article that is a major problem, that which sucks is hidden on command of those who wield the alphabet soup to hide lack of any knowledge? Waste time of others instead of fixing big problem or allowing another to? Are you going to add monocots the clade as a group of monocotyledons, btw, to the article? Could not really make it worse. 166.137.118.89 (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see now why Wikipedia is notorious for vandalism of articles. I am reading a textbook and articles by the experts in the field and trying to fix articles which are wrong. Along comes someone who not only knows nothing on the subject, but is unwilling to correct their lack of knowledge, and, instead of helping or encouraging correction of the multitude of errors of fact and old taxonomic misinformation, sneers rules and prnouncements at the IP editor and engages a battle on a trivial aspect to block correction of bad articles. Vandalism is probably more entertaining and no one has to deal with pretending. 166.137.118.89 (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you want to fix the article, fix the article; puttering around with a peripheral redirect does nothing towards accomplishing that end. bd2412 T 16:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes it does. Because of the bad state of the articles on monocots and monocotyledons many editors have linked to the monocot d redirect that takes you to the monocotyledon s article when, over half the time, the intended target is the monocots clade article. This would have prevented adding to the confusion and making it worse while the suck is dried up, my intention was that maybe other editors might join in cleaning up, too, when they saw they had made a mistake by missing the plural. I think I might make another bureaucratic misstep, though, by being too focused on accuracy, and that would be deadly for me, but fun for you. No, vandalism seems much safer than correcting 12 years of errors. 166.137.118.89 (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are going about this wrong. First, the number of new disambiguation links being created is currently outpacing the number of links being fixed, meaning that it is quite possible that new disambiguation links will never be reached by editors working on regular disambiguation tasks. Second, you are contradicting yourself. You find other editors incompetent to know the difference between these topics, yet you want these same editors fixing the links. What will happen is that the typical editor will guess which one to point to, and lacking expertise in the field, will guess wrong. More likely, even, someone will decide to go through the links with a bot that will point all of the links to one topic. I have seen that happen dozens of times. You can't solve problems by creating confusion and hoping others will see it and know enough to fix it correctly, you make them worse that way. If you want help fixing specific articles, ask for help at the relevant Wikiprojects. bd2412 T 17:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no reason to have two articles in the first place; there is only one topic. We don't have separate articles on the Liliaceae sensu Engler, the Liliaceae sensu Cronquist, the Liliaceae sensu Dahlgren, the Liliaceae sensu APGIII, etc. We have one article on the Liliaceae which discusses how views have changed over time. In the same way we only need one article on the monocots/monocotyledons. The issue of redirects then disappears. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is there in Monocots that needs to be covered in Monocotyledon? Is there enough overlap that the first title can be redirected to the second? bd2412 T 01:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Back to what Wikipedia had, call the clade monocots in taxonomic information, then redirect that to the monocotyledons article and don't explain why the clade is called the monocots because Peter already smugly knows everything. Since you think the monocots are merely one group of monocotyledons you might be making it worse. Wikipedia can be an original encyclopedia, though. Monocots is sufficiently worthy every where else, why follow trends and fads when Wikipedia can be creative? Originality for the sake of carelessness, bureaucracy, and ignorance is stupid. But the writers here already know everything, so an article is not needed. 97.122.179.132 (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Encyclopedia Britannica has an article on "monocotyledon (plant)", but has no separate article on "monocots"; rather, it has a short section in its "angiosperms" article that says "monocots include principally the palms and bamboos". Material about "monocots" is generally contained in the "monocotyledon (plant)" article. bd2412 T 04:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Big difference, EB calls the clade monocotyledons in its Angiosperms article, Wikipedia calls the clade monocots, then redirects that name to a badly written article about monocotyledons sensu monocots and dicots. 97.122.179.132 (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would suggest improving the Monocotyledon article, then. You can propose additions and alterations on the article's talk page, and seek consensus for those changes. That should be no more of a task than setting up a separate article. bd2412 T 05:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
              • Why don't you improve it? I was trying to learn about the monocots clade, and I have no interest in the monocotyledons article like it is written, the monocots and dicots without the dicots. I think that every minute on Wikipedia the encyclopedia will be accompanied by days of Wikipedia the bureaucratic non-encyclopedia-writing discussion sessions with people who don't know a thing about the topic, or who know so much they can't figure out why an article would be necessary for them. Before you start fixing anything, though, you might see if you can figure out what monocots are--hint, hint, EB won't help much either. 97.122.179.132 (talk) 06:32, 16 November 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.

يوربا بارك[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) 21:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially Arabic. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is a themepark in Germany, Germany does not use Arabic as a common or major language; target has little affinity for Arabic -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel agent. (External search for this showed most of the online travel agency sites with added pictures.) Si Trew (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to content they're looking for, no reason has been suggested for deletion. WilyD 12:33, 20 November 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_November_14&oldid=1138579822"