Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 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, 2015.

Computer language[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 Turn into a DAB. (non-admin close) Legacypac (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Computer languages are not exclusively programming languages. HTML for example is a computer language but not a programming language, just like PostScript and CSS. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 21:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate, computer language could also be a markup language (mentioned in, but distinguished from, current target) or query language (not mentioned in current target). Peter James (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, per Peter James. A computer language could refer to any machine readable language, be it for programming (like C, Java, C++, etc.), markup (like Wikitext and Markdown), control of another program (like a Makefile), or data storage (like JSON). BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, not just programming and markup languages, but the computer code (machine code) itself is a "language", and not a programming language either (in the sense of C or Basic). -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • DisambiguateComment. Looks like User:210.6.254.106 has already started a draft DAB below the redirect. (Thanks!) I've added a couple of entries. Si Trew (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC) updated Si Trew (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:58, 17 November 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.

Super duper pooper scoopers[edit]

Sextraders[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 those that remain. --BDD (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sex trader" is a term for women sometimes used for women working in the sex industry, so this redirect is random and makes no sense. These were all created as redirects to pimp by a user who I think was a bit confused; at the current target they're still as nonsensical. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I combined listing. Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have a sex trade article at sex industry, so these should not point to prostitution. (Of course, that article isn't about bartering with sex... which is another meaning; and we have a more specific sex trafficking for trading of sex workers) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - they are going to call me a deletionist. but oh well. Maybe they are thinking sextrader is like slave trader? Never heard any of these terms used though sex trade is a common term and a valid redirect to sex industry. Legacypac (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget sex trader to sex industry (where sex trade targets), delete the others. Procuring is the wrong context here, one doesn't barter with a prostitute. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I retargeted sex trader and removed it from the list here so the closing admin can just delete the rest. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 22 November 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.

Gabriel Dante Rossetti[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 30#Gabriel Dante Rossetti

Lord Eddy[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) 14:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Lord Edward is a Dab page, and I seriously doubt anyone ever called these distinguished gentlemen Lord Eddie Legacypac (talk) 06:33, 14 November 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.

Know'st[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 all. Consensus is that at least some of the redirects listed are useful. To prevent a trainwreck, I am closing this with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 13:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dictionary words that don't mean quite what they are targeted at - standard Neelix. Legacypac (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. Related words, same target as Know (created as a redirect by an administrator in 2003) and Knowledgeable (created by another editor in 2007). Peter James (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least Knowledgeably, Knows, and Known as plausible related terms. Neutral on the rest (more obscure). Neutralitytalk 06:03, 21 November 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.

Brown Sequard[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 30#Brown Sequard

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 procedural close. Nominator has effectively withdrawn this redirect to open a requested move discussion. (non-admin closure)  Paine  19:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse the redirect. Until I changed it a little earlier, this targeted Word-sense disambiguation.

It was used in about a dozen articles, not always correctly. I've fixed those either to point directly at word-sense disambiguation (for linguistics articles), to point at disambiguation (metadata) (for seach engine kinda articles) or simply to unlink it.

If word-sense disambiguation were WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it would be at disambiguation itself. Patently it is not, so put the DAB there. Si Trew (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background comments. I came to this by way of (disambiguation) which it seems is always used wrongly, in hatnotes etc, by users unfamiliar with it. Similarly, disambiguation seems sometimes to be used in an innocent attempt to link to a disambiguation page. It doesn't help that it ends up at the technical article word-sense disambiguation (even though that did have a hatnote to WP:Disambiguation, I've removed that now since the disambiguation doesn't go there).
I've also boldly retargeted disambiguate, but nothing linked there. "(disambiguation)" was discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 1#(disambiguation), the result was delete, but I guess either it was never actually deleted, or was restored. Si Trew (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "Disambiguation" page was moved by User:Dekimasu on 15 May 2007 with the ec "per Wikipedia:Malplaced disambiguation pages". There have been requested moves before (at Talk:Disambiguation_(disambiguation). This is a requested move, then, I guess, but since everything points to this discussion it might as well stay here for reference. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation (disambiguation) didn't even link to Word-sense disambiguation until I changed it; it went via the disambiguation redirect (against WP:DABPIPE, although this is not a pipe that covers redirects too). Si Trew (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Several comments. First there have been several discussions in the past. It had initially been deleted in 2005 when there were no existing articles and it only pointed to the Policy page and wiktionary. A Talk:Disambiguation (disambiguation)#Requested move requested move for a then two-entry disambiguation page with result of take it to AFD. The outcome was speedy keep after some other entries were added. After the AFD, another requested move resulted in no consensus. Disambiguation was left as a redirect to word-sense disambiguation as the primary topic. Second, your edit here was incorrect. MOS:DABPRIMARY clearly states that such use of a redirect is allowed When the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article. Third, as to the merits of this particular request, I'll need to consider whether the situation has changed since the last discussion. older ≠ wiser 10:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem we partly had, or have, is that people then put "disambiguation" into an article and because it comes up blue they think all is well. Because word-sense disambiguation is quite a technical article, I do not think it is a primary topic for "disambiguation". It is the primary topic for word-sense disambiguation, that's all (for if not, we might need word-sense disambiguation (disambiguation)). To change the phrase "word sense disambiguation" to "word-sense disambiguation" is not "wrong"; that's WP:LINKCLARITY, (and I considered but rejected going via the R at word sense disambiguation). As I say, really this is a move request but thank you for replying here. Si Trew (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Determining whether word-sense disambiguation is the primary topic for disambiguation should be discussed on one of the relevant talk pages, not in a relatively low profile redirect for discussion page. You didn't only change the phrase "word sense disambiguation" to "word-sense disambiguation", you unilaterally decided you didn't agree with the previous consensus and changed the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"By "unilaterally decided" you mean, I was WP:BOLD? Guilty as charged. I already said I think this should go to RM and I'm happy for this discussion to be closed as wrong forum, but I think it best that someone uninvolved does that, and then I'll open the RM. Si Trew (talk) 14:14, 14 November 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.

René Nicolas[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 by @Drmies:except the one that is her first and last name (procedural close) Legacypac (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so many variations of this person's name with no credible reason. I did not nominate the 4 most reasonable. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 14 November 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.

Island apparitions[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 deleted by Drmies; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More Neelix redirects that make no sense. These all suggest real land, but I can't quickly think of a use for these redirects. Not to the current target anyway. The target deals with islands that appeared on maps or reports in the past. Some redirects suggest to me Marian apparitions or something a delusional or thirsty person might see. Others suggest what actual islands look like, "That island looks green", or perhaps how islands are formed from a volcanic eruption in the ocean. Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete an "island apparition"/similar would be a ghost that exists on an island, and not an island that is a ghost. For the "land" ones, WP:BIAS, islands are not the only form of land. Further apparitions of islands can be Fata Morgana (mirage), or a volcanic island rising above the waves, or tidal islets that disappear at hightide, appearing at lowtide. "Appearance"/etc versions are just stupid and I can't see those being ever usable -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do have tidal island. Volcanic island → high island. Si Trew (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look up apparition in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing (WP:XY), I think it could be either, actually. An apparition is just something that is apparent (visible), not necessarily imaginary or ethereal. It could be a lighthouse.
I considered making a very weak case for a retarget to Plate tectonics or Volcanic arc (and we have High island and Low island for how islands are formed), but none seems close enough in meaning; WP:XY – "appearance" means something a bit wider than "creation". I could boldly make a DAB for those at Island creation, but even then I'm not sure any these should R to it. Foster's rule (← Island rule) discusses the evolution (and thus appearance) of insular species, and has a "see also" section for Island giantism and Island dwarfism, which could also go at such a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (edit conflict) With 70.51's and Legacypac's consent I have combined these into one listing. (I've put anchors for the deleted section headings.) I hope in doing so I haven't accidentally changed the meanings of their comments (the timestamps are a little off, but these were "batched" listings/responses by both). Si Trew (talk) 10:51, 14 November 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.

Sobbingly[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unusual construction Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep reason for nomination is unclear; word is used in articles. Peter James (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; "sobbingly" is essentially an adjective, "crying" is a verb; since "sob" is not technically the same word as "cry", this redirect could be seen as inappropriate. Alternately, weak retarget to Wiktionary:sobbingly. (I oppose "keep".) Steel1943 (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree there since "sobbing" is a verb/noun, just like crying. Steel1943 (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjectives can redirect to nouns, or to the same targets as the related nouns, even if the meaning is not identical (for example, Slanderous redirects to Defamation); I assume it's the same for adverbs. Peter James (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment views are less then 1 per day (bot noise) except for attention drawn to is as a Neelix redirect. It's not helping anyone. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect per Peter and Steel. There's enough use of the word (surprisingly enough) that a Wiktionary redirect might be a good compromise. -- Tavix (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't know what you guys are looking at, there are only 4 inbound links to this, from the usual deletion listing pages. No instances in articles at all. It points to the wrong target currently, per Steel1943. I dislike the idea of creating Wiktionary redirects for every word on that site. If our writing here is unclear to the point that we need to define the words in use, the solution is to write better prose, not bluelink every silly construction off-site. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:44, 23 November 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.

Acceptable (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 retarget to Acceptance (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 02:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_13#Appropriateness. We might want to combine these discussions.)

Probably Retarget to Acceptance (disambiguation), but I can foresee that might depend on consensus for the "Appropriateness" redirects. It is bizarre to retarget an {{R to dab}} to something other than a DAB page. Si Trew (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • REtarget per nom -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only relevant page is acceptance; acceptable should be redirected there. Peter James (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not a real DAB, it's just a redirect that makes zero sense. Acceptable already exists as a redirect to Acceptance (disambiguation). I removed the one inappropriate inbound link and nom'd for G6 speedy. Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Si Trew and IP70+ – I have contested the speedy here, because this is still an ongoing RfD with no certain disposition yet. Nor should any incoming link to the page be removed while this redirect is under discussion. Be prosperous! Paine  11:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Acceptance (disambiguation) as long as acceptable redirects there. Not too sure about that one, actually, but Special:PrefixIndex/Acceptable doesn't hint at any better target either. (note: I declined the speedy deletion). —Kusma (t·c) 20:18, 20 November 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_November_14&oldid=1037882052"