Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 4, 2014.

Milk brother[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 retargeted to Milk kinship by 85.55.206.26. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no mention of milk brothers or milk sisters in the sibling article. 90.165.113.142 (talk) 23:28, 4 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.

Bargain basement[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 keep. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes present. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 09:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with a "Bargain bin". Alfred Selfridge invented the "Bargain Basement" according to Bill Bryson, for Selfridge's in London, or at least copied the idea from the department stores of New York. WP:RFD#DELETE "The title is confusing". Why should I bother to list, I should just make the article. Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article has a whole paragraph on how Bargain Bins and Bargain Basements have become synonymous. Now, you've nominated the article for deletion and, if it goes, no objection to removing this redirect. But removing the redirect is premature. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per RevelationDirect -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw the nomination. Procedural close, please. The "bargain bin" article rticle seems very US-centric, and perhaps it is a term used only in North America. So I'll just add content at Bargain Basement. By no means synonymous in British English, I think: but it's up to me to show it. Si Trew (talk) 08:06, 5 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.

Numbers (disambiguation)[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) 19:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The target for Numbers is discussed below. However the fate of this one may need to be discussed separately.

It was a redirect to Number (disambiguation) from 28 May 2012 until today, with edits I have just reverted. Before that it was a redirect to Numbers and before that to Number. It has never been other than a redirect.

At this time, all its entries are also in Number (disambiguation). Si Trew (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Updated Si Trew (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep as redirect to Number (disambiguation). That's not so long it needs splitting and hardly benefits from the items being on separate page, while the new DAB page created has only four entries and so is far too short and would be an obvious candidate for merging (and was merged once previously according to the talk page).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with JohnBlackburne. What I was trying (I think successfully) was an emigration from the entries at that DAB to the new one created today. Then at least we are not trying to hit a moving target. Si Trew (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create DAB as SPINOUT of Number (disambiguation) per my comments below. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect to Number (disambiguation). Having separate dab pages for "number" and "numbers" would imply that Numbers (magazine) and Number (magazine) would not be in the same dab page. With such separate dab pages, I do not see any simple (and easy for the reader) way for disambiguating these magazines. D.Lazard (talk) 14:20, 12 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.

Numbers[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. A simple closing statement for a lively discussion, but there seems to be no other logical outcome here. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be changed to redirect to a disambiguation page? A discussion about a hatnote at Talk:Number#Hatnote span off into a discussion about this redirect, but only after many editors had already commented on the hatnote. Changing the redirect is a seperate discussion, i.e. an RfD, so here it is. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should add that I oppose changing it. Per WP:POFRED redirects are normally created for plurals to singular articles. As I write there are 8,870 such redirects in Category:Redirects from plurals, and an unknown number more not properly categorised. There are only a handful of exceptions, usually with good reason for them such as there only being one Sun, so there's no plural of it, but suns appears in other contexts.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that proves nothing: redirects should only be in Category:Redirects from plurals if they are plural forms of a singular term meaning the same thing. This is covered by WP:PLURALPT. What is discussed at the talk page is whether "Numbers" and "Number" mean different things; e.g.:
and so on. There is no Category:Redirects to plurals functioning as singular (to use Collin's Concise Dictionary terminology), so it's hard to quantify how many Rs or articles we have of this form: R to Plural is specifically those that don't. Trousers, Netherlands, scissors (but not forceps, plural forcipes), let alone DABs when the plural is a homograph from two different words, such as axes and bases. Si Trew (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted on the talk page and above there are a handful of exceptions but only a handful, where the plural has its own meaning (statistics, morals, physics) or the word doesn't have a plural (e.g. Sun). But the vast majority of words, over 8000 on WP, the singular and plural mean the same thing. And "numbers" is just the plural of "number". This meaning is the main meaning so the primary topic. It has other uses but none is primary so they're all listed on the DAB page.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which talk page? Certainly not at redlink Talk:Numbers. Si Trew (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble is JohnBlackburne you have no way of showing it, as they are definitely not in any category: rather are excluded from any. I'm with you but it is hard to say why, I gave four examples off the top of my head, for English plurals, and two for mixed Greek/English plurals,, but I am not a Turing machine: Hates and Hate both go to Hatred ("hates" could be plural or 2nd person verb) "Ides" is DAB, Heebie-jeebies is DAB,Crunchies to my surprise is stub article but Crunchy is a redlink. Taking Occam's Razor on this one. Si Trew (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguate page at Number (disambiguation). This might be better at the talk page, but I'd Reword the hatnote at Number to mention "numbers" explicitly, e.g.:
This page is about a mathematical concept. For other uses of "number" or "numbers", see Number (disambiguation).
I note that the meaning as comparative "more numb" (a DAB page) is not listed: while Wikipedia is not a dictionary, perhaps it should be as the word is genuinely ambiguous in sentences like "I got number five seconds after he hit me". More marginally, its use in cryptic crosswords as an agent noun to mean "anaesthetic", but we're not a how-to guide. Si Trew (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguation page at Numbers (disambiguation). The term "numbers" has several meanings sufficiently distant from its meaning as the plural of "number" to justify this redirect in accordance with WP:IAR. Tkuvho (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Primary topic is reasonably number, and no indication has been given that that is no longer the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody's saying it isn't. It's whether Numbers should redirect there. Si Trew (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some confusion here. The primary topic of "numbers" is where "Numbers" should lead the reader, either by an article at Numbers or by being the target of the redirect at Numbers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No confusion. We're discussing Numbers, not Number. Nobody I think is in doubt that Number is the primary topic. Si Trew (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly nobody is in doubt that number is the primary topic. We are discussing what to do with numbers, that may or may not be the same thing. Si Trew (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. The article residing at number is the primary topic for the term "number" and "numbers". I fail to see how it can be the primary topic for one and not the other, no other potential target for "numbers" is in the same league. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The color blue is not the primary topic of Blues, so there are many cases where the primary topic for the plural is not the same as the primary topic for the singular. I am sure you don't "fail to see" that. Similarly, the mathematical concept is not necessarily the primary topic of numbers. Tkuvho (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blues though is clearly its own topic - it's easy to think of examples which it's clear and unambiguous what it means, even without the help of a pointer that it's a musical term: "he was a key blues innovator", origins of the blues, blues historians etc.. "Numbers" has no similar meaning independent of "number". It's certainly not the book of the Bible, and similar examples makes this clear: what's meant by "I read numbers" or "I read the numbers"? Neither of those makes any sense on its own.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct User:JohnBlackburne, there is indeed a difference between "blues" and "numbers", and that's why "blues" is not a redirect whereas "numbers" is a redirect. Just as one could say "I read Genesis" one could also say "I read Numbers" in an appropriate context. Furthermore, what is relevant is not what one might say but rather what one might type. One can easily see someone typing "genesis" to look for the book, and also someone typing "numbers" to look for the book. Tkuvho (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
one could also say "I read Numbers" in an appropriate context – that's the difference. You really need the context for it to make any sense. For me "I read the Book of Numbers from the Bible" is enough but my British education and upbringing included a lot of exposure to Christianity. Someone without such a background might need even more context, to identify the Bible or to understand how it's made up of 'books'. Yes, a few people will search for the book as "numbers" but when they end up at number the first thing in the article is a hatnote just for them (and for people looking for number theory, or Numb3rs, etc.).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see that a trainspotter might say "I read numbers". I have much the same upbringing, I think, as JohnBlackburne, and I know a lot of the bible kinda by infusion; but we were taught on KJV which (as has been pointed out) does not in the running text say "numbers". We could take Book of Numbers to auditing if we were very coy; but I am not sure "Numbers" primarily to people means the fifth book of the pentateuch. Si Trew (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth book, apparently! We must have had very cheap copies... Si Trew (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The word "numbers" (plural) has the primary meaning of a book of the Bible, according to two dictionaries.(1, 2) Note, however, that the plural is only used in the name of the book, not in the text itself (King James Version). --50.53.50.92 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The NIV uses "numbers" (plural) in several sentences like this: "His division numbers 74,600." (search link) --50.53.50.92 (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting my search, which is what 50.53 found: Nothing in KJV says "Numbers" in the running text. I am not trying to be disrespectful to Christians but obviously this just depends how you translate it. Throwing "Prime numbers" into my favourite search engines gives Wikipedia top at Prime number then kinda a mix of educational sites. "Complex numbers" the same; WP first then other educational sites (though for both, Wolfram Research uses both singular and plural; surprised their article is not bigger).
I don't really see why it is relevant whether or not the term "numbers" occurs in the running text. Neither does "genesis" in the book of that title. By the way, neither title has anything to do with the original Hebrew title, but they are the customary English titles nonetheless. This thread is getting a little long, so perhaps some clarity can be restored by providing brief answers to the following:
Do you support redirecting the page numbers to Number (disambiguation) instead of Number, to reflect the additional primary meanings of the plural?
  • Support. Tkuvho (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As the primary topic of "numbers" is the plural of "number", "Numbers" must redirect to "Number", by common sense and guidelines that I have not the time to search for. Another redirect could be confusing for people looking for the primary topic. D.Lazard (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguate page at Numbers (disambiguation) and SPINOUT all distinct uses for "numbers" to Numbers (disambiguation). We are discussing Numbers, not Number and even though "Numbers" is indeed the plural form for "Number", it is also an entity entirely of its own. As was mentioned by an IP editor on the talk page and by Si Trew above. Numbers is also an American TV series, the fourth book of the Bible, a literary magazine published in England, and the title of multiple songs and albums. None of those uses or the plural form of the word can distinctly be called the PRIMARYTOPIC, and as such, there should be seperate DAB pages. The hatnote should read:
This page is about a mathematical concept. For other uses of "number", see Number (disambiguation). For "numbers", see Numbers (disambiguation).
— {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well Technical 13, Si Trew already expressed his opposition to a new disambiguation page at "numbers (disambiguation)", so I suggest you change your vote to a clear support of the redirect to "number (disambiguation)" if you want to make a constructive contribution. Tkuvho (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, what is being proposed is retargeting to number (disambiguation) rather than numbers (disambiguation). Tkuvho (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support?/Oppose? Who knows?: I can't tell what came before or what is being proposed exactly. I would argue that Numbers, the book of the Bible, is not the plural of number, and that "Number" and "Numbers" for at least that reason need to be treated in separate ways, not simply according to rules designed for singular and plural forms, no matter which are the primary meanings of each. Decide separately for each word what its own primary meaning is and disambiguate accordingly. Keep in mind that the book of the Bible is a prominent meaning for Numbers and that those associated with that usage are going to think of that first before considering the plural of number. Capitalization here changes the association - tough luck. Evensteven (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize the vote, I see 5 users in support of the redirect: User:Rick Norwood, User:SimonTrew, User:Technical 13, User:Tkuvho, User talk:50.53.50.92. Tkuvho (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I see 4 users opposed to this change: JohnBlackburne, JHunterJ, Xezbeth, and myself. On the other hand, I have not found any !vote by User talk:50.53.50.92, only comments, without any expressed opinion. As Technical 13 supports another redirect, this gives, so far, 3 "support" and 4 "oppose". D.Lazard (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David, are you referring to the primary meaning of "number" or the primary meaning of "numbers"? Tkuvho (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of "numbers". Yes, it's not quite as clear as "number" because of the Bible book but I think it's still the primary topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a technical WP issue the technical implications of which are not altogether clear to me. However, the Numbers name of the Hebrew Bible book has nothing to do with the singular Latin concept of a "Number." Therefore it should redirect to "Numbers (disambiguation)". warshy (¥¥) 20:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is there is not enough support here for creating a separate disambiguation page for "numbers". As I see it, the main problem with redirecting "numbers" to "number" is that the hat at "number" is misleading, because it only mentions other meanings of the singular "number". A user looking for information on the book of Numbers may erroneously conclude that there is no page on this on wiki, since it may not occur to them that "other meanings of number" is supposed to include other meanings of the plural, as well. For this reason, "numbers" should be redirected directly to whatever disambiguation page is available, rather than to the page on the mathematical concept. Tkuvho (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Numbers" disambiguation should redirect to "Number." There should be a separate "Numbers" disambiguation page. So I, for one, think you are correct and I agree with you. warshy (¥¥) 16:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond in the next subsection. Tkuvho (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to break the rule of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to solve the issue raised by Tkuvho. It suffices to change he hatnote of Number into
For other uses of number and numbers see Number (disambiguation)
On the other hand, warshy's suggestion is discussed at #Numbers (disambiguation), and does not allow to disambiguate between Numbers (magazine) and Number (magazine).
D.Lazard (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Refocusing the issue[edit]

There have been several misunderstandings having to do with multiple disambiguation pages. I would therefore like to refocus the issue as follows, to get a clearer idea of the prevailing views.

Do you support redirecting the page numbers (which used to send the reader to the mathematical page number) to either the existing disambiguation page number (disambiguation) or perhaps to an alternative disambiguation page numbers (disambiguation) (provided editors agree to the latter)? The choice between such disambiguation pages can be made later.
  • support. Tkuvho (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But I don't understand exactly what "choice ... can be made later"... warshy (¥¥) 16:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some editors here support a redirect to number (disambiguation) but don't support the creation of a new disambiguation at numbers (disambiguation). This however is a side issue that can be decided later. Tkuvho (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted here this is entirely inappropriate. Changing the question so you can !vote twice? No, you only get one !vote. So what happens to your previous !vote? If it's not to be counted then you've shifted the balance of that !vote towards oppose. If the initial question is to be disregarded then I'm sorry but you don't by fiat get to change the question to one you prefer, especially one that's so vague and confusing. Let the question originally posed run its course first.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a separate subsection and a different question, there is no danger of that, User:JohnBlackburne. The reasons for clarifying the question are compelling enough, and agreed to by other editors. Tkuvho (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never agreed to the need of clarifying the question, nor with your way of refocusing it by starting a new non-vote. I completely agree with JohnBlackburne. I may add that your new formulation of the question is exactly the initial question. Thus restarting a discussion and a non-vote on the same question is a mess. D.Lazard (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does it clarify? Here's the original question: "Should this be changed to redirect to a disambiguation page?". I don't see how your version clarifies this or how there's a "compelling" need for clarification. I can't honestly think how I could have phrased it more clearly. Of the two other editors supporting your formulation one does not understand it, and by seeking to change the question but not really asking anything different it is confusing.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are both misrepresenting the earlier vote, User:D.Lazard and User:JohnBlackburne. The earlier vote was in response to my question Do you support redirecting the page numbers to Number (disambiguation) instead of Number, to reflect the additional primary meanings of the plural? It was not in response to the original posting by User:JohnBlackburne, contrary to what you are claiming. Tkuvho (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support: I support the clarification here, as definitely necessary. If that means a "vote" redo, fine. But we don't vote. We leave thoughtful comments, so let's leave off the legalistic expressions of democracy. It's definitely possible to read what's written here and get a clear idea of who and how many offered thoughts and in which direction. Numbers should not go to Number (math definition), but to a disambiguation. There is even reason, through the exceptional alternate meaning of the biblical book of Numbers, to think Numbers might be that book, while there could be disambiguation pages for either or both also. In any case, number (disambiguation) is not the place to direct to the biblical book. That ought to be numbers (disambiguation). Evensteven (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. "Numbers" with the s is an unlikely search term when looking for number — seems at least reasonably likely that people are looking for the Bible book or the TV show. For links the situation is probably more weighted towards number, but really there should not be very many links to number. Links to extremely general articles tend to constitute overlinking. Generally they should be linked only from other extremely general articles, of which there are relatively few. --Trovatore (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Refocusing the discussion[edit]

This discussion becoming rather long and confuse, it appears useful to summarize it.

This discussion is aimed to discuss if Numbers should remain a redirect to Number or changed into a redirect to a disambiguation page Number (disambiguation) or Numbers (disambiguation) (the latter is presently a redirect to Number (disambiguation), and a proposal to making it a separate disambiguating page is discussed at #Numbers (disambiguation)).

A large part of the discussion consists in posts where the arguments may be reduced to I prefer this. As they are not useful to reach a consensus, they will not be summarized here. There were also several non-votes showing that none option has a clear majority, and that these non-votes do not lead to a consensus.

A first part of the discussion was to know if it is possible, in Wikipedia, to have a plural that is not a redirect to its singular form. The conclusion was, although not frequent, this can occur.

An argument against the change of the redirect has been presented several times, and is based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which states that, if there is a primary topic, the title should be redirected to this primary topic. It has not been seriously contested that the primary meaning of "numbers" is to be the plural of "number".

An argument for the change of the redirect is that the hatnote of Numbers is confusing by refering to the other uses of "number" and not those of "numbers". It has been answered that this may be solved by expanding the hatnote, without breaking the rule of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

As I have not found any other relevant argument in the discussion, I suggest to restrict it, from now on, to

  • Correct the misunderstandings, mistakes or omissions that I may have done in this summary
  • Provide new arguments in either directions, which are not preferences, but are supported by factual evidences or Wikipedia guidelines.

D.Lazard (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say "It has not been seriously contested that the primary meaning of 'numbers' is to be the plural of 'number'." While you may disagree, the point has been made that the primary meaning of 'Numbers' (capitalized) is a book of the Bible. Also, a person interested in "number" is unlikely to search for "numbers". I don't think this is a big deal, one way or the other. I just wanted to state the case for the redirect to the disambiguation pages as clearly as possible. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rick Norwood, above, in the following order: "I don't think this is a big deal. one way or the other." That is why I made my initial Comment above on this discussion. But since the name of the Bible book of Numbers has nothing to do really with the "number/digit" mathematical subject, the redirect should be to "Numbers (disambiguation)." That is all I am trying to say, and the last time I will say it here, because really I don't think this is such a big deal, one way or the other... warshy (¥¥) 16:07, 17 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.

List of murders of children by Nazis[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. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The target is not a list and never will be. WP:RFD#DELETE #3, "The redirect might cause confusion", #5, "The redirect makes no sense". Si Trew (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added a courtesy note at the target's talk page. I note that the word "murder" only occurs twice at the target; once "inhabitants [of ghettos] murdered in death camps", which is not specifically about children, and once a para later as "children murdered in reprisals". "Kill" is more often used there. Si Trew (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Holocaust children aren't the only ones murdered by the Nazis. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:47, 5 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.

Diminished unison[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) 19:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Diminished unison should be deleted entirely. There is a consensus among sources, this interval doesn't exist. It redirects to Augmented unison, which does exist, somewhat rarely. Redirect will cause confusion due to the ambiguity of terms. BassHistory (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Just because something doesn't exist, is no reason to delete it. Points users to where they are likely to want to go, and its nonexistence is mentioned in the target's lede with several sources. Si Trew (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Just because something doesn't exist, is no reason to delete it." Well, there is no page for Negative distance. Should I create a redirect there, that goes to Distance?
Negative distance should probably R to Coordinate system. Si Trew (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the nonexistence is not mentioned anywhere in the article, nor should it be. This is an article about the Augmented unison, which exists, not the Diminished unison, which doesn't exist.BassHistory (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - discussed at target. If there's any ambiguity here, I'm not seeing it. WilyD 10:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ambiguity is in the fact that having a redirect creates the impression that these two things are synonyms. This page (Diminished unison) never should have been created. Even to mention the term "diminished unison" is a waste of time.BassHistory (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't create that impression. It especially doesn't create that impression when one considers that it's explained in the article. WilyD 10:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me why a discussion of "diminished unison" belongs in the Augmented unison article? I suggest that the bit on "diminished unison" be removed, along with the redirect.BassHistory (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Consider the very reasonable definition of the range of interval descriptions as: "A natural number n (i.e. greater than 0) which can be preceded by a qualifier, major or minor (for n = 2, 3, 6, 7 modulo 7) and augmented or diminished." This gives us the names for all the intervals which exist, plus exactly one (You Know Which It Is) which does not exist. Every interval to which "augmented" can be applied can also take "diminished", except. If you use another very reasonable sounding definition for inversion, you get that the inverse of an augmented octave is a diminished unison. This is an error, because an augmented octave is more than an octave, but apparent experts have been confused by it in the past. Therefore this is exactly the place to point out the problem. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - yes, this is a term with a nonexistent referent, but the term itself obviously exists, and is mentioned on the target page. So the redirect can only help. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, Imaginatorium, you are mistaken. The term does not exist. How can you say the term "obviously exists"? Can you point me to a glossary of musical terms that includes "diminished unison"? Further, "Diminished unison" is not mentioned on the target page, nor should it be.BassHistory (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure: http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory12.htm This is a page on music theory, and it says: "Some theorists do not allow the diminished unison because the C flat lies below the C natural and this breaks the rule that all dyadic intervals are named from the lower note." The fact that this is all muddled is irrelevant: Wikipedia should explain (it's quite easy) why the "diminished unison" is a wonky notion, but mention, correctly, that there are people who have used the term. More below... Imaginatorium (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found that too. And it enlightened me in a subject I know very little about, to why some musicoloists say so. Si Trew (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a reliable source. The fact that you are both referencing that site in this discussion is problematic.BassHistory (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the job an encyclopedia to document every individual misconception in history.BassHistory (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Diminished unison" is NOT a musical term. Additionally, "Diminished unison" is not explained or discussed in any way at the target article. Having Diminished unison redirect to Augmented unison creates the impression that these are synonyms. It's time for these music theory pages to get cleaned up. They are EXTREMELY mediocre, and I would appreciate if those without expertise would make this a place where serious contributions are welcome. Please don't mire us in relativism, bureaucracy and mob-rule.BassHistory (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Anyone, including you, can turn the redirect into an article, and it would be good to know why musicologists think it doesn't exist. But, for "those without expertise" who come across this term and say "what is that? I'll look it up on Wikipedia", right now this is the best way we have to lead them to the information. Si Trew (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving target. '"Diminished unison" is not mentioned on the target page' because with this edit of 4 November User:BassHistory deleted it. Si Trew (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects sometimes are for an alternate name for the same thing, but we also use them for a topic covered in an article that does not have an article of its own. Deleting the material during a discussion here does not in my opinion show good faith. I have rolled back the relevant edits. If any of them were a good idea, someone else should make them. DGG ( talk ) 09:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The term "Diminished unison" exists on Wikipedia, therefore Wikipedia must discuss the Diminished unison". Thanks, internet, for saving the world with your limitless access to free information! (sarcasm)BassHistory (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go and start musicology.org then (Register.com owns it, it redirects there). Wikia will host you. By definition, Wikipedia is limited: we try to do our best to bring information to people. not perfect, not finished, but deleting content while a discussion is proceeding is perhaps not a good persuasional tactic. Insulting other good faith editors, however misguided they may be in your lights, is never a good tactic. Discuss the problem not the people. Si Trew (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, WP:AGF… Remember DGG, you're jumping into a conversation about a topic with which your are totally unfamiliar. That wasn't your judgement call to make, I don't care if you're an admin or not. That info doesn't belong there. You can look into my history as an editor here, I have a great track record. The only time I butt heads with anyone is when I remove unsourced or poorly sourced material from other editors. This particular example has a more than 4 year history. It's extremely disheartening, and truly ridiculous, that Diminished unison wasn't deleted within a week from when I first addressed the issue in 2010. I am 100% confident that ANYONE with a solid background in music theory would agree, yet here I am arguing this out with five strangers, who, as far as I know, couldn't tell me the notes in a C major triad. It's no wonder that I tell every music student of mine to "stay the hell away from Wikipedia".BassHistory (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • O! My ears and whiskers! You're a music teacher! Big Deal. So what, I am a rocket scientist (and I still don't get the girl). The facts stand for themselves, before your delete, the R directed people less knowledgeable than you to where they would find information about why the "diminished unison" is deprecated by musicologists. That's what encyclopaediae do, help people who are intelligent enough to say "I don't know that" to find out. The personal attacks against DGG deserve a ban in my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks? Insulting other editors? What are you referring to?BassHistory (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may not see it like this, but I think you personally attacked another editor (not me). Y.ou've replied to every single Keep vote rather than put your case (without any references except "I ama music teacher") in every single thread. That is not helpful. You could state ycaour case, with references, with one edit (or four in my case when I fix my typos etc) rather than leave it scattered. The WP:AGF wanes. Here, we disuss facts not people. Leave that to Facebook.
You are hitting all the right notes, pal, but not necessarily in the right order. Would you like Chico Marx deleted because he played the piano skilfully badly, or Les Dawson, who did the same? Both used to practice playing bad piano and good piano. Si Trew (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, SimonTrew, you're still not quite understanding. It's not that music theorists ("musicologist" is the wrong word) "deprecate", or disapprove of, the "diminished unison". There simply is no such thing.BassHistory (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't say "respectfully" when you have no respect. It's an antonym. I noticed you said "With respect" to someone earlier who had some knowledge of music, but not to any others, on your general line of "I know better than you". WHich is good, but readers know less than you, let them find it. Si Trew (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I happily admit that I had never heard of a "diminished unison" until I arrived on this page by accident. In normal terminology, musical intervals are the distances between two Notes (I capitalise just to remind us that this refers not to "sounded notes", but to note representations, distinguishing C# from Db). Distances are unsigned quantities, and therefore it makes no sense for a distance to be negative. But (traditional) musical interval notation has a rather odd property: instead of counting the distance (the number of spans of wire between n telegraph poles), it counts the number of poles. So a 3rd is a distance of *2* notes, not 3. And 3rd + 3rd = 5th, not 6th. This confuses people no end(*Note), but it also means that a unison (which I admit feels to me like a "noughth", rather than a "first") can have a "diminished" form which *looks* like "a bit under 1". But it is a negative distance, because 1 is the additive zero in interval arithmetic. The Dolmetsch page (see above) claims that musical theorists think that a diminished unison "breaks the rule that all dyadic intervals are named from the lower note", but of course this is wrong too. A distance isn't "named from" either end, it is just the distance between two things.

(Note) See http://legacy.earlham.edu/~tobeyfo/musictheory/Book1/FFH1_CH1/1M_RatiosCommas1.html where he says (correctly) that you can add intervals by multiplying their frequency ratios, and then: "This explains why, when adding intervals together that are inversions of each other, they result in the perfect octave, even though arithmetically, 4 + 5 = 9!." No, arithmetically, when you are adding intervals, 4+5=8.

Anyway, there is nonsense knee-deep about all of this, all over the place. The best way to deal with nonsense, though, is to point out that it is nonsense, not pretend it doesn't exist. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. -1 is an article. Si Trew (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a bad idea. (Not sure if it was serious) The tuning stuff does not discuss the minutiae of individual intervals, and is not the place for a mention of why the term "diminished unison", while sometimes used, is not one that makes any standard sense. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is serious. It is mentioned at the target, and explains where it falls in the scale. We're not all concert pianists. I studied the piano for four years and said, yep, that's definitely a piano. Si Trew (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Interval (music)? Discusses the diminished, and unison, in the lede: separated by a full stop (period). Si Trew (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean you can't have an article or section describing it (for example the nonexistent metal gnomium, that was predicted to exist by some 19th-century chemists). In the case of the diminished unison, the term may be nonsense, but it has definitely been used, and since it is the only one of the interval names generated by the standard rules that happens not to exist, it would be a good idea to explain briefly the history of the term and why it is usually rejected. Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Yes, I created it in 2010 under an old username, for about the same reason: the term had been used, so I wrote a little stub defining (1) what it meant (when used) and (2) why most people think (correctly IMHO) that it's nonsense. Perhaps the article was excessive, but I see no reason that the brief discussion needs to be excised. Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done, User:Double sharp. I feel another has his F# off. Si Trew (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Double sharp, you linked to a version of the article that claimed "The diminished unison is an interval". That statement is basely false. This is exactly why this misnomer should be excised from Wikipedia entirely. Thanks for making my point for me.BassHistory (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When it is used to mean anything at all, it's always an interval (and that supposed interval always is one semitone smaller than a perfect unison). Whether or not that interval exists is not the issue the first sentence was meant to address: that was the job of the second sentence. Double sharp (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That article was completely erroneous and misleading. It was one of the worst instances of spreading mis-information that I have seen on Wikipedia. This is exactly why people need to consult mainstream resources before creating fundamental stub articles. An article on a musical interval is really a mundane thing, it must do a simple job.BassHistory (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article as it stood said why music teachers/musicologists no longer use the term. That is useful information that belongs in an encylopaedia. It wasn't as if it went on for hours about it. It was exactly the right target, to mention in brief with references, this term was or is used. To take an example: botanical and zoological articles tend to be listed under their Linnaean names, to avoid confusion: but they list their WP:COMMONNAMEs as well, and usually the R goes there. Herbs and spices seem to be an exception, eg. Marjoram and Oregano (in the same family), but [Daffodil for example goes to Narcissus (plant). Si Trew (talk) 06:30, 8 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.

Chess on the Dot[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. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

made up game, not even mentioned in the main article DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I do not understand the "Redirect discussion procedure", but it seems to me that having this redirect in place can only help. (a) In the (unlikely!) event that someone is looking to find out what "Chess on the dot" is, a redirect might help. But (b) in the (more likely!) event that someone tries to recreate the page, having the redirect there will make it easier for other people to see what happened before. (I had quite forgotten, but see that I was the person who nominated the page for deletion.) Imaginatorium (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The AfD for this was closed 19 April 2004 as "redirect to Chess_Variant" (without much consensus, as far as I see) but no recommendation in the closing notes to add content there. Anyone wishing to recreate the article will get a warning that it was previously deleted, and can use search to find out why. (For example, try Shortest article on Wikipedia.) Si Trew (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete then. Your argument seems persuasive (but you mean "closed on 19 April 2014"!) Imaginatorium (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The days are long, but the years pass by anticlockwise. Si Trew (talk) 19:48, 4 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.

Languages of Korea[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. JohnCD (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The target only talks about the Korean language itself, not about all of the languages spoken in Korea as a whole. - TheChampionMan1234 05:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my weak retarget, go with Keep. I thought so too, but as always, try to offers alternatives, if only strawmen. Si Trew (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And who shall do the expansion? Si Trew (talk) 15:54, 5 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_4&oldid=1050183455"