Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 1, 2015.

Wikipedia:Sam H. Harris (producer)[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term created through a move error. BDD (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, WP:G6. This would fall under "deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace". It looks like Steel1943 beat me to tagging it though. Tavix | Talk  18:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I didn't realize that was spelled out as a G6 criterion. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2015 (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.

Li Lingwei (athlete)[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. Deryck C. 08:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is more trouble than it's worth. So the target article is about a badminton player that has been deemed WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name. There's also Li Lingwei (javelin thrower), but no disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS. This redirect was formerly the title of the javelin thrower. We could retarget there, since articles disambiguated with (athlete) are almost always about Athletics in the British sense. But since this was pointing to a disambiguation page that no longer exists, I think deletion will be the neatest solution. (The status quo is awkward but tenuously acceptable, since there's a hatnote and the badminton player could also be referred to as an athlete, in the American sense.) BDD (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per BDD and WP:RFD#D2 "may cause confusion". As a speaker of British English, I hadn't naturally thought of the American sense of athlete to mean sportsperson more generally than track-and-field. So, I hazard to guess, a British English speaker would get a WP:SURPRISE by thinking, oh, that must definitely be the javelin thrower, then find that not to be the case. I agree with BDD that we could retarget it, but there is no need to: Li Lingwei has the appropriate hatnote.
The discussion for moving to primary topic took place at Talk:Li Lingwei (badminton) → Talk:Li Lingwei from 11 to 16 May 2015, so this is a relatively recent move. Si Trew (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2015 (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.

United States Senate Special Committee on the Eligibility of James Sheilds[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) 14:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect not is mentioned in the target article. Also, this redirect did previously target the disambiguation page James Shields; the current target is the article that was recently displaced to move the disambiguation page to the base name/ambiguous title. I'm also not seeing this phrase in any of the other articles listed on the disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It might also be worth mentioning that the subject's surname is misspelled in the redirect's title (Shields vs. Sheilds). Steel1943 (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean not mentioned in the target article, right? --BDD (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering that too, the "not". You forfeit me your favourite bathplug. Si Trew (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching for the exact term (with e i) of the R with My Favourite Search Engine gives this from the US Congress records, but not the same Shields/Sheilds, I think, hypercorrection, User:Steel1943 does us right to point out the misspelling. Most roads lead back to Wikipedia as mirrors and so on, and it's not our job to fix theirs (or thiers): we lead, they follow. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2015 (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.

Untitled Cameron Crowe Project[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) 14:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated redirects, this project is no longer untitled. Tavix | Talk  15:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as this redirect is no longer accurate. --Lenticel (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accuracy has nothing to do with it, it's whether it's useful. stats.grok.se must have changed cos you used to get the hits for the R itself rather than for its target, which is a pity, it is hard to distinguish it. I see no harm in it staying, however useless, I suppose WP:CHEAP. Doesn't mean I have to like it. Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it isn't useful. Cameron Crowe doesn't have an untitled project, and having a redirect saying that he does is very confusing. Tavix | Talk  15:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a question of whether it is useful, but whether it is harmful, and it doesn't seem to be (although perhaps it could be WP:RFD#D2 confusion). I must admit I was surprised, after all these years, a few months ago actually reading the instructions to find that they go delete by default. Si Trew (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's not untitled, so it is now misleading. -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Neutral, striking my keep. It's useless but not harmful, but consensus seems to be veering towards delete, and I have no ambition to stop it being so. Si Trew (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2015 (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.

Back with 69% more lulz[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) 14:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a significant enough use of this phrase to warrant a redirect to "LOL", especially since it isn't mentioned at the targeted article. Tavix | Talk  14:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a vague synonym. I can't find any works where it is a significantly a part of. Besides, it's approximately 31% too vague to be kept :P --Lenticel (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' per Lenticel. I had a good search for this and really nothing came up. By the way, Lenticel, it ain't 31% if you are doing compound interest. Are you buying or selling? You have 31⁄200 left, now, that is, roughly 0.165 or roughly 6/1, but nobody ever offers six to one. Take the frac, go 13/2, which is marginally better from the punter's side. Take the frac! Never at 3/1, go 100/30, a Burlington Bertie, or push it to 7/2. Remember, those odds exclude the stake.) Put it all in the roulette table, on 00 (a DAB).The Bookmaking article is still a mess, and our gambling articles generally are a complete mess. I try to sort them out but they get reverted by the punters who think they can work out the difference between 9/4 and 2/1 quicker than I can: the frac is 2.25 if you are buying ("laying") and 1.8 if you are selling ("taking"). Over the years I have had several goes at Odds but because outside the UK and Ireland odds are usually decimal odds they get reverted as kinda incomprehensible. It is all based on a half crown being an eighth of an old pound sterling, which you can divide by 2, 3, 5 and multiples thereof, key against decimal being 3. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now this made me lol. Nice one SiTrew--Lenticel (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frac? Tavix | Talk  19:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic. Fraction (mathematics) (Fraction is a DAB). It doesn't improve your chances of winning, of course (they keep forgetting to tell the horses), but you improve your return if you do. Every little helps. I hadn't noticed you piped this until editing it but Frac is also a DAB. Odd how things come up out of silly comments like mine, since there is some overlap between those two dabs. Si Trew (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2015 (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.

Future Hong Kong Chief Executive elections[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) 14:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and they're confusing because they are retargeting to the wrong year. Tavix | Talk  14:50, 1 June 2015 (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.

American Idol trivia[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. As with Qantas, Tavix, I'll leave the official recording of the attribution note to you. --BDD (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unhelpful; it alludes to a "trivia" section when there isn't one at that article (and there shoudn't be, per WP:HTRIVIA). It was redirected as a "merge" but there isn't anything from that article at American Idol so we don't have to worry about WP:MAD. Tavix | Talk  14:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 "may cause confusion". It's not an {{R to section}} (and as Tavix says there is no such section). Hits below noise level, no links within article space. The WP:MAD argument is interesting, because we had kinda the opposite conclusion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_29#Qantas_Flight_Numbers recently, I forget what it was now, where I suggested there was no need to keep the redirect because the content had all been deleted from the merge destination, but that argument was rejected (not by Tavix). The same argument is now being used here Si Trew (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I noticed that. You can see a full explanation of my opinions in this subject at Wikipedia:Redirects for_discussion/Log/2015_April_14#Auroconf. I don't think it's necessary to rename the history, especially when it is renamed to something completely different. That makes it next-to-impossible to find the history that they are trying to preserve. Tavix | Talk  18:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I responded at the discussion for Qantas Flight Numbers with a proposal for a compromise. I think the same thing could be applied here as well. Tavix | Talk  19:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds sensible to me, I'd agree with that. Si Trew (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since target article doesn't provide info on AI trivia. --Lenticel (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General muse We use that argument a lot but we don't actually have a guideline for "no info at target". Would be good if we did. I think the consensus here is that if there is no info on the redirect at the target, then the R should be deleted, but there is no guideline for doing so. I tend to go with WP:RFD#D2 confusion by default, since it is at least a WP:SURPRISE to put in a specific term and then find nothing about it, but I think it could be spelled out explicitly we should have an explicit guideline, or add this explictly to an existing one e.g. D2. I'll put this suggestion on our talk page. Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Updated Si Trew (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2015 (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.

Naperville Academy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Naperville, Illinois#Education (cf. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). --BDD (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a school called "Naperville Academy" anywhere. Tavix | Talk  14:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete There was a school by this name in the mid-1800s but obviously the state is not an appropriate target for a redirect. Mangoe (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. Changed my opinion to "weak". Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget per Tavix and Steel1943. Si Trew (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we're suggesting different targets... I'm offering Naperville, Illinois#Education and Steel1943 wants it at North Central College. Tavix | Talk  04:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I meant more the principle of the retarget rather than its particular target, but I think Tavix' Naperville, Illinois#Education is better. I've created a draft para with the references User:Mangoe gave, below the redirect. Si Trew (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's weird. I was actually doing the same thing last night, but didn't finish it. I've still got another tab open that says "editing Naperville, Illinois." I'm going to go finish that now... Tavix | Talk  15:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and I'm done. The entire section on private schools is now fully sourced. Tavix | Talk  16:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I ain't. Nicely done, but no mention of the old Naperville Academy which is the track Mangoe and I were heading down. Can we include that in any way? Si Trew (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've already !voted retarget, but at the proposed target I have added that historical info that User:Mangoe gave. It could be more, but that would be WP:UNDUE, I think. Si Trew (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And this must be the most boring article I have ever read. Give me some 1-1-1 Trichloroethane. Si Trew (talk) 09:35, 3 June 2015 (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.

2013 Eminem Tour[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) 14:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing. According to Eminem#Tours, Eminem didn't have a 2013 tour. Tavix | Talk  14:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a good catch. I removed it from The Home & Home Tour (if you look at The Rapture Tour, it says his last tour before that was The Home & Home Tour). That has to be where all the hits are coming from. Now that it's been fixed, there shouldn't be so many hits in the future. Most of the rest of your rationale seems to be reasons to delete it. There's a reason we don't have {{R from incorrect fact}}, because it's WP:RFD#D2 confusing. It gives the illusion that he had a 2013 tour when he really didn't. Refining it to Eminem#Tours doesn't help with that because it confirms that he didn't have a tour that year. Even years that he did have a tour are red, so why should we keep a year that he didn't have a tour? There's a lot more reason to have 2000 Eminem Tour (the year of his Up in Smoke Tour) than this one, for example, and that's red. Tavix | Talk  16:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Delete it, then. I had looked at the other tours but didn't mention it: obviously I should have. (And I am not known for brevity.) It's odd to have these in infoboxes instead of in a navbox, anyway. Si Trew (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2015 (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.

Small impact of the large Google Translation Project on Telugu Wikipedia (from meta)[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 delete per criterion R2 by RHaworth. Steel1943 (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By mistake created in main name space Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2015 (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.

Canal-22[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. If there's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (e.g., very prominent TV channel) for this term, the redirect makes sense. The IP's suggestion is inadvisable unless there are multiple topics on that page that could be referred to as "Canal 22", which does not seem to be demonstrated here. --BDD (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the more common redirect Canal 22 (same target). Raymie (t • c) 06:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Redundancy isn't a reason to delete redirects. Unless it satisfies any criteria at WP:RFD#DELETE, it won't be deleted. However, since any channel 22 in Mexico is technically a "Canal 22", would it be better to retarget this to Channel 22 TV stations in Mexico? Tavix | Talk  14:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would to me, Retarget both. I am not sure whether {{R from other language|es}} would be appropriate for these since they are proper names. Channel 22 is a DAB where this, and other countries' "real" and virtual Channel 22s, are listed, so perhaps that would be more appropriate? That being said, Mexico is the only country there that has Spanish as its official/main language, and I've added a "See also" crossreffing the two Mexican DAB pages. Si Trew (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not seeing many uses for a redirect with an odd hyphen in it (indeed there was just one use of it). The other issue is that XEIMT is an exceptionally prominent national-level station, known as Canal 22 nationwide (it's available OTA in more than half of Mexico thanks to SPR, available on all cable and satellite providers) and around the world (like many Latin American broadcasters they market an international feed, known as Canal 22 Internacional). That said, I have added a hatnote to the target that should help; eswiki has something similar. Raymie (t • c) 00:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "canal-22" and "canal 22" to Channel 22 ; "canal" means "channel" in multiple Romance languages, of which multiple stations are listed. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk)
That's true, but we don't seem to have any articles or redirects for channels broadcasting in languages other than English or Spanish. The nearest I could find that could be is CIII-DT-22 → CIII-DT in Ontario, but that broadcasts solely in English, it seems. The French-languageCIVB-DT is listed at Channel 22 TV stations in Canada, in turn listed at Channel 22, so all seems fine there. Si Trew (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2015 (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.

Musica instrumentalis[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) 14:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely implausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 04:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TheChampionMan1234: it's not a typo, it's Latin for "instrumental music" (according to my translator). Tavix | Talk  05:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: Although your translator is correct as far as it goes, the historical usage of the Latin expression "musica instrumentalis" referred to practical music-making, as opposed to speculative theory. The redirect is at least dubious, but the only satisfactory solution would be to create an article explaining the term as found in writings of medieval and Renaissance music theorists, such as Ugolino of Forlì, Juan Bermudo, and Matthias Mercker.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jerome Kohl: I assumed there was more to it than that, thanks for the explanation! I think that would be a fascinating article, especially if there is a lot of information on the term. If you'd want to write the article, it would go a long way to clear up (and essentially end) this discussion... Tavix | Talk  14:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TheChampionMan1234: Redirects are used for more than typos. The assumption that a term, easily found in a google or google books search, that includes both "music" and "instrument" is a typo seems even more than entirely implausible. Hyacinth (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why do you believe it is a typo? It isn't tagged as one -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK, WP:RFD#D10. Patently there is consensus that there is scope for an article here. 65.94, it isn't tagged as {{R from other language|la}} either, which it should be with its current target, but not perhaps if an article were created, since I'm not sure there is an English equivalent (the literal "Instrumental music" being patently not the same thing, and Harmony (music) being probably too vague). @Jerome Kohl: is there an appositional Latin term for the theory of music that you refer to, in Latin/Roman/Renaissance culture? The article Boethius#De institutione musica mentions it in a classification of three types of music (but does not link to it): The others there, Musica mundana and Musica humana, are red. Si Trew (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We don't have De musica or De institutione musica, either, which could {{R to section}} there. (Not saying they should, just that they don't.) So this is a bit of an outrider. Si Trew (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I should clarify that the (medieval) Latin term can mean the same thing (or may appear to mean the same thing) as the English cognate, as in the title of Martin Agricola's Musica instrumentalis deudsch (1529), which is largely taken up with a description of various musical instruments. However, Agricola's treatise also deals with the rudiments of practical music-making, so the apparent cognate may even in this case be partially false. In classical Latin, the word for a musical instrument is organum, while instrumentum means "an implement" or "tool" and is in turn derived from the verb instruo, "to build", "to construct", "to instruct", "to prepare", "to provide with information" (compare modern German Bildung, Ausbildung, French instruction/formation, Spanish instrucción/formación). Indeed, in classical Latin instrumentum can be used as a word for the human voice (as a "tool of rhetoric", for example), and I have just been informed of a recently published 400-page book on the subject of the human voice in classical literature (Verena Schulz, Die Stimme in der antiken Rhetorik, Vanderhoeck und Ruprecht, 2013, ISBN 9783525253021) in which I expect to find ample material on the word instrumentum in its various, almost entirely non-musical senses. It is in this context that musica instrumentalis means "instruction in music-making", and Agricola probably assumed his readers would know at least this much Latin, even if he also felt they would be more comfortable being instructed in German (the book is written in German doggerel, sprinkled liberally with Latin terms). As for an "appositional Latin form", I cannot think of one off-hand, but will see what I can discover. Verena Schulz happens at the moment to be a visiting scholar at my institution, so if I do not find this particular wrinkle discussed in her book, I can always ask if she can come up with an example. The title Musica practica is used by several Renaissance writers in the same sense of "practical music-making", but that is not an appositional construction. Boethius appears to be a bigger problem than one might at first assume, and I have tagged the mention of "musica instrumentalis" in the Wikipedia article as vague for this reason: His three-part division of music into musica mundana (the speculative "music of the spheres", musica humana (what today we would probably classify as sociology), and musica instrumentalis seems on the face of it to exclude vocal music entirely, which is absurd. The peculiarity is that Boethius does seem at first to be speaking plainly about musical instruments but, having referred to a few types, never mentions them again, instead dealing at length with the rudiments of music-making. So far I have been using the English translations by Calvin Bower and I will need to consult the original Latin text, where I expect to find at least some ambiguities in the grammar at this point, if not some variant readings of the passage in different surviving sources. Part of the problem is that Boethius is late enough that the changes from classical to medieval vocabulary is already well underway, and it is even possible that this very passage in De musica, because of this treatise's enormous influence on later writers, may have been partially responsible for the shift in meaning of the word instrumentum (in a musical context) from its classical sense to our modern conception of "musical instrument".
The bottom line (you knew I would get to this eventually, didn't you?) is that indeed the redirect should be Deleted and replaced by an article explaining all of this; as it stands, it is at best misleading and at worst just plain wrong.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per @Jerome Kohl: Gosh, there are articles shorter than that! Genuinely you could make an article out of this term just from what you wrote above (although I am not sure where you would put it, Instrumentum I would guess). Si Trew (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @SimonTrew:: You will of course notice the woeful lack of reliable sources in what I wrote above, and this (for the moment at least) would prevent using it as an article. However, if such an article were to be created it should not be a dictionary entry on the Latin root term instrumentum, but rather on the concept of musica instrumentalis. I do think it would be preferable to make this part of a larger article—for example, a separate article on Boethius's De musica, or perhaps a larger article on medieval theory in general. The current Music theory article, though in urgent need of work, is already too broad to accommodate such a specialized topic, and the same is probably true for Philosophy of music. Possibly it might be accommodated in the Medieval music article, even though the topic spills over substantially into Renaissance music.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Patently you're the expert, I can't even get a bum note out of the comb and paper. Whatever you think is best. TBH I wouldn't worry about the RS, if you made a stub somewhere (e.g. at Musica instrumentalis, if you think that is the right topic) I and others could probably find RS: At that stage, once the content is written, gnomes like me come in and do that kind of tidy up, so I'd say be WP:BOLD and get it started! Si Trew (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change target The best target for all three is Musica universalis. (I just redirected Musica mundana there before stumbling onto this conversation--I'll wait until this gets resolved before continuing.) Unforunately, right now that doesn't use the term "musica instrumentalis" exactly (though it should). Rigadoun (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Rigadoun:: Why do you think musica universalis is the best target for all three concepts? Your redirect of musica mundana is of course spot on, since the usual senses of the two terms are interchangeable (and musica mundi is a third variant), but musica humana and musica instrumentalis/musica practica are not. In Boethius's constellation, at least, they are on the same conceptual level—"siblings", so to speak. Directing any of these three to one of the others would be a bit like redirecting Jupiter, Saturn, Earth, Mars, etc. to Uranus. The problem here, it seems to me, is to find the conceptual equivalent of Planets of the solar system.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading more carefully, I think you're right. I was thinking of the section Musica universalis#Esoteric Christianity, but really it's nearly the same as Boethius#De institutione musica, and even the section title is confusing because it isn't necessarily specifically Christian. Your planets analogy is apt, and even though it would be like redirecting to a section in the Uranus article entitled "Other planets in the solar system," it's probably more confusing than anything. It seems clear that there isn't a great redirect target yet, but what would we call such an article? Three kinds of music? That's the usual translation of Boethius' section title. Rigadoun (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2015 (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.

Autostrada[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) 14:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the name for freeway in several places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.162.73 (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draft:Autostrada (disambiguation) has now been moved to Autostrada (disambiguation).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about why this nomination was relisted. This discussion does not contain information that adds to this nomination's consensus.
There appears to have been some confusion here between admins (I am not an admin), possibly not helped as I CSD'd the redirect created by the move from the draft, per WP:G6, WP:G7, and User:Steel1943 and I were probably second-guessing each other. I was just adding redirect tags etc. as the redirects stood at the time). The discussion was closed so I could not comment there, but as I thought I made clear at Talk:Autostrade of Italy#RfD, drafts and page moves, I was quite happy for the DAB proper to be at Autostrada with Autostrada (disambiguation) as a redirect to it (i.e. stet at that time), but didn't feel that had been the consensus here. There are a dozen or so incoming links to Autostrada, but without prejudice I shall go through them and pipe them to Italy. I know WP:NOTBROKEN but these will be broken (and would have been) on the decision to place the DAB at Autostrada. Si Trew (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew, this was about something else. Long story short, most of the proof of what happened can be found in my contributions, and the end result was me relisting this discussion and other changes (other than the disambiguation page moving out of the draft space) have been reverted. Steel1943 (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: Yeah, I am still trying to unpick it. Looks like the culprit really was the three-point turn with these edits and related, creating Roads in Autostrada of Italy, I assumed I had erroneously created that while nodding but actually it was done as a move by User:Anthony Appleyard, I am not sure why. Si Trew (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew, actually, this relist was the result of a dispute regarding my close of this discussion, so I made a judgement call and figured that the best course of action would be to just reopen and relist this discussion. Also, if it's the same with you, I'd like to collapse this discussion since it's distracting from the heart of this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Steel1943 fine by me to collapse. I've listed Roads in Autostrada of Italy at CSD. Let's start again! Si Trew (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also Si Trew, the reason why your note is sitting on Talk:Roads in Autostrada of Italy was because this talk page was moved from Talk:Autostrada to Talk:Autostrada (version 2) when Autostrada (version 2) was created; it was a redirect created for attribution purposes only with an implausible title, so I moved the attribution to a more likely title. (As far as I can see, Autostrada (version 2) has now been deleted.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard: Perhaps I was mistaken (as you see, I took Roads in Autostrada of Italy to CSD so can't check). If so I can only apologise. In any case, I hope you realise when I mentioned you it was not in any way finger-pointing but just to try to understand what has gone on. Thanks for all your work at CSD and elsewhere. Si Trew (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Autostrada (arbitrary break)[edit]
  • Keep. Autostrade of Italy is the primary topic, so Autostrade and Autostrada should redirect there. Autostrada (disambiguation) linked from a hatnote is fine. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For added fun, Atlantia (company) of Italy was formerly known as Autostrade s.p.A. I can't help thinking most of the problems here are due to the decision to have the article in the plural at Autostrade instead of Autostrada. That is against usual MoS for WP:SINGULAR, and a lot of the problems could have been avoided if that had been followed. I'm inclined to do a WP:RM just to move it over Autostrada. We have the DAB, now. I'll wait until this closes. Si Trew (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And mirabile dictu, we have Autostrade International and Autostrade S.p.A. redirecting to that company. (I am not sure we should have the latter; we don't put the company status after the name, but I am struggling to find that policy though I know there is one. We don't have e.g. Autostrada SpA either, which if it existed would be {{R from other punctuation}}, but that gives the lie to this not needing to exist. I will list it.) Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2015 (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/2015_June_1&oldid=1136083108"