Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 28, 2016.

Government conspiracy[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) 14:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good place for these redirects? The current target is a dab, and it doesn't list any government conspiracies. List of political conspiracies is close, but I'm afraid it's not close enough, because (to me) "government conspiracies" imply conspiracies by a government, while the list seems to be a list of coups. Unless there's a good retargeting suggestion, I think a WP:REDLINK deletion might be best, because I feel this might be a notable subject. -- Tavix (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. I agree with Tavix, the implication is that the conspiracy is by a government and not, e.g., by a political party that happens to be in government). That is, by the government admistration (e.g. Sir Humphrey) and not by the executive (Jim Hacker). Was the Watergate scandal a government conspiracy or a political conspiracy or both? It depends on one's WP:POV, probably. Si Trew (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - A broad concept article appears to be warranted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2016 (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.

Maybe Voltron?[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. Per external search engines, the root of this phrase seems to have some sort of connection with original research trying to claim that the subject of the redirect's target happened in the Voltron universe. Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2016 (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.

Yoshida Medical Research[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) 14:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Also, the page history of this redirect seems to be a copy-paste move from a Wikia site. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as confusing. I've been seeing certain Yoshida research labs and also Yoshidas that are associated with medical research that aren't connected to the movie itself --Lenticel (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unless the website for the film was given this title, it isn't notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2016 (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.

Octaboon[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) 14:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in target article. Also, search results for the redirect in external search engines seem to not return any specific subject. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2016 (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.

The Monster/Cloverfield (creature)[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, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects seem so unlikely and so vague that it doesn't seem helpful, considering that the redirects start with "The Monster" (The redirects' target or any subtopics of the redirects' target are not listed in the disambiguation page The Monster.) Also, the redirects do not have any history to retain since they only contains redirects and retargeting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Clover (creature) exists, but in my opinion, retargeting there would not resolve the issue with the redirects starting with "The Monster" as stated in my nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - I agree that these are not helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, Slash method of subdividing The Monster is not a useful disambiguator. And the movie producers and crew have called the creature Clover. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:01, 30 September 2016 (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.

Political neologism[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) 14:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No words starting with "politic" are present in the target article. For this reason, the target article does not define what the subject of the redirect, which causes confusion for readers being misled to this article attempting to find a definition for the term. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I note that political jargon goes to politics (equally unhelpfully). It is the political nature of the neologism, not its novelty, that is the important part of the phrase – if indeed "political neologism" is not itself a neologism. We do have Category:Political neologisms, whose lede states "Nearly all political terms were political neologisms at some point" (which is rather tautological anyway).
But we do have List of political catchphrases (<- Political catchphrases) and List of political slogans (<- Political slogan and Political slogans), either of which is perhaps possible (the first links to the second in the lede, but the second does not link to the first anywhere). Si Trew (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there's a section, list or category of political neologisms, there isn't much served for this variant. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:02, 30 September 2016 (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.

Rational neologism[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) 14:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word "rational" is not present in the target article. For this reason, the target article does not define what the subject of the redirect, which causes confusion for readers being misled to this article attempting to find a definition for the term. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This should be a redlink unless actual content about it is added to the neologism article. Kaldari (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2016 (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.

Moving forward (slogan)[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of redirect is not mentioned at target. The subject of the redirect seems to be an example of the target's subject, but the subject of the redirect's target is not exclusive to the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2016 (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.

User Account[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, and refine the former. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User Account. Both User Account and User account are redirects to same article. Former has 0 usages, latter has ~59 usages. No need to have two redirects that differ only in letter case. Sasha1024 (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. User account in an {{R to section}} at User (computing)#User account; this one isn't. Si Trew (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both (but neutral on target): Capitalization differences that matter by first letters of the word are WP:CHEAP. (I have no opinion about the target per Si Trew's observation of the two redirects having different targets, but I do agree that they should both target the same location.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added and merged User account into this nomination. The nominator's original statement refers to User Account. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, refine the first to section "User account" and rcat as {{R to section}}, {{R from other capitalization}}. There's 39 links for User account in mainspace. Si Trew (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Sorry for possibly-stupid question, but what is the sense of redirects from other capitalization, if searching using the Go or Search button is, generally speaking, case-insensitive? I understand that extra redirects don't harm. But do they have any bits of usefulness at all? Sasha1024 (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasha1024:They might be linked in articles – perhaps as column headings etc, instead of using a piped link. Doesn't seem to have happened in this case but I your question was about Rs from other caps in general. I wouldn't recommend creating them, but them having been created, there is less impetus to delete them. Si Trew (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine per Si Trew, directs users to what they are looking for. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:38, 29 September 2016 (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.

Wordcoinage[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) 14:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect). Delete as a, um, a WP:NEOLOGISM. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only since 25 September 2016, though. Before that it redirected to Neologism, since the previous edit, a merge on 3 May 2005 (sic, over 11 years ago). Looks like Protologism was then created on 23 August 2005, so it's a bit spooky (purely coincidental of course) that it's been stably pointing to Neologism for 11 years and changed just a few days ago. I guess if this were kept it should go to Protologism too, then. Si Trew (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2016 (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.

Identic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 5#Identic

Sojourned[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 5#Sojourned

Hectographer[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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirect). Delete. I can find no evidence that someone who makes a hectograph is a hectographer (in dictionaries, general searches, etc).In French it is the infinitive of the verb, "to hectograph", and English dictionaries do have it as a verb too, spelled "hectograph". this Swiss site has "hectographer-machine" but likely that is a back translation from French, and seems a nonce word, otherwise I can find no English usage. Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2016 (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.

Rametic[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) 14:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) Delete. I have rcatted ramet (not a Neelix redirect) and ramets (a Neelix redirect), the first is explained in the lede and the second is a reasonable {{R from plural}}. However I can't find this in online dictionaries or general search, but I may be searching the wrong way. @Plantdrew: you're usually the expert on these things. Any good? Si Trew (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find any evidence that this exists as a word either, and I'm finding it difficult to imagine contexts where an adjectival form makes any sense (best I can come up with is "rametic lifespan is...", but I'd rather just say "ramets live for..."). Plantdrew (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Ramet" and "Ramets" are both perfectly valid terms, as stated above, while this isn't helpful and should be gotten rid of. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, although Google book searches point overwhelmingly to Rameric. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:12, 30 September 2016 (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.

Brazilian destroyer escort Bracui (Be4)[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Error in title: this ship was the Be3, the Be4 was USS McAnn (DE-179) which has a correct redirect from Brazilian destroyer escort Bauru (BE-4) — JFG talk 13:05, 28 September 2016 (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.

Brazilian destroyer escort Bauru (Be3)[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Error in title: this ship was the Be4, the Be3 was USS Reybold (DE-177) which has a correct redirect from Brazilian destroyer escort Bracuí (BE-3) — JFG talk 13:02, 28 September 2016 (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.

Religously[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect). Probably Delete as WP:XY, to do something religiously does not necessarily have much to do with formal religion or religiosity. No incoming links, stats well below noise level (1 in 30 days), should mark as {{R from adjective}} if we decide not to delete. Si Trew (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as wrong spelling of dicdef. — JFG talk 13:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed it was a misspelling. Religiously, correctly spelled, is red. I better check the others in this group for similar misspellings, thanks. Si Trew (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also an attempt to overlink to a common word religiously. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Spelling aside, this is still making a reach that's not right. As stated above, one can be religiously involved in an activity without it having a specific tie or close relevance to any creed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2016 (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.

Browsing engine[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 Web browser engine. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2016 (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.

Portal:Wikipedia[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. --BDD (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This should go to Wikipedia:Community portal if anywhere, it is not linked from main space, and I would not call the main page a portal, I am aware of the previous discussion, but until a new portal is actually created, this should best go to Wikipedia:Community portal. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:16, 28 September 2016 (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.

Ethnic subgroups[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 Ethnic group. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

possible re-target, the target article doesn't seem right for these redirects Prisencolin (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all to the broad concept article "Ethnic group", which should be helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that redirecting to Ethnic group is the best option for these. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Ethnic group — JFG talk 13:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. What are sub-ethnic people, then? The Untermensch, perhaps? Although gsearch does give some hits in academic publications, I think this is rather a sloppy word to mean ethnic subgroups, and anyway is rather WP:DICDEF as an R.
Sarawak and Sabah link to sub-ethnic groups, the other two have no links from articles (well, the first has a link in the lede of List of contemporary ethnic groups, "by definition" as it says... but really is just defining that the definition/taxonomy of "ethnic group" is recursive/hierarchical).
However Ethnic subgroups (without the hyphen) gets about six hits a day on average, above bot noise level (the others are well below noise level). Si Trew (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have Category:Sub-ethnic groups (and subcats thereof). Howewever from a more general gsearch I am not convinced that "sub-ethnic group" is is a correct synonym for ethnic subgroups: it is used in some academic papers, but I am not sure how much weight they carry; most of my initial hits are to Wikipedia. After all, ethnic group doesn't mention sub-ethnic (or subethnic) groups at all. Perhaps I am just being too pedantic. Si Trew (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per the article Ethnic group, an ethnic group can be "subdivided" into a tribe or clan. So, maybe add a section to the article for these redirects to target that specifically identifies this fact, or maybe create a WP:DABCONCEPT page for the redirects including information for tribe and clan? (In other words, I see where Si Trew's coming from with his statement, and with that, I see issues with these redirects in regards to WP:REDLINK.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I could see that a DABCONCEPT might make sense, or would we be in danger of WP:OR there? The last two just seem ill-formed (it is the group that is subdivided, it is not that members of that group are "sub" anything: we don't have sub-ethnicity for example. But perhaps that is pure pedantry on my part). Patently the current target is inappropriate. I note we don't have ethnic subgroup in the singular. These tend to suggest they have been created rather than a WP:PIPE, although there are examples in the academic literature, I think it's just sloppy writing (or more likely sloppy thinking). I've struck me delete !vote but am suspending judgment for now. Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To give an analogy, although we have neither racial subgroup nor sub-racial group (nor the plural forms), both terms appear in many Wikipedia articles. I do appreciate that many people make the distinction between ethnicity and race (although not all make the same distinction): I offer "race" merely as a close analogy, for better or worse. subrace is a DAB with two entries, the first to Race (biology); we haven't sub-race, subracial, etc. Si Trew (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have to object with necessarily viewing "sub-X" as a pejorative; the English language is full of terms such as "subheading" and the like that don't have any judgement to them. I also think that we're skating into original research territory getting too much into managing conceptual ideas. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ethnic group. Hopefully there's a section to discuss sub-ethnic groups or ethnic subgroups, but both terms are used in a bunch of books. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:18, 30 September 2016 (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/2016_September_28&oldid=1088108296"