Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 17

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 17, 2017.

Microsoft Distributed File System XXX

[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what the "XXX" is supposed to represent. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

History of Mac OS

[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 Macintosh operating systems. -- Tavix (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects seem to have a bit of an WP:XY issue between the subjects of the articles at Macintosh operating systems, MacOS and Classic Mac OS. So, unless a specific target can be found which encompasses all three of these topics, it may be best to delete all of these redirects per WP:REDLINK to create a genetic history-based article which encompasses all three aforementioned subjects. Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tara Louise

[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. 11:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target - no obvious connection Peter Rehse (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMagnificentist: Do you have any evidence that Tara Leniston is known as Tara Louise? -- Tavix (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tara Leniston's middle name is Louise, as shown in the article. - TheMagnificentist 17:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheMagnificentist: That's not what I asked. I'll ask it slightly differently this time: Are there any sources of Tara Leniston going by the name "Tara Louise"? -- Tavix (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't. - TheMagnificentist 17:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

P (number)

[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 P (disambiguation)#Mathematics. Deryck C. 11:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Pi is never known as "P", so I don't see the value to this redirect. My search results are overwhelmingly about welding. -- Tavix (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Early Transcendentals

[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete or retarget as below delete. Implausible search term with little connection to the target article. Created as the sole edit by User:ShippingMagnet, with the edit summary "means calculus". But it doesn't mean calculus. It's the subtitle of a calculus textbook by a certain James Stewart, who apparently wanted to introduce the subject of transcendental functions early in the book. See this stack exchange thread. Trovatore (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to James Stewart (mathematician). Anyone looking for this is likely looking for the book. If the consensus is to delete, salt it, because I can easily see this becoming the topic of joke searches by students. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to James Stewart (mathematician) but a "redirects here" and a hatnote to transcendental dab page as the user could be looking for the history of transcendentals (philosophy, math, meditation, etc..) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The proposed retarget also seems OK, and I note that the textbook is mentioned there. Maybe, if sourceable, someone could add something about the reason for this (somewhat awkward IMO) subtitle. I wasn't able to find any real source. --Trovatore (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While Stewart may have originated the term (or at least popularized it), it is now fairly common to see it in modern calculus texts, especially when more than one version of the text is available for different audiences (Briggs and Cochran, a popular calculus text from Addison Wesley, come to mind immediately). A retarget to Stewart seems problematic to me. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from the content of the stackexchange thread linked in the nomination, as well as the fact that the term isn't associated primarily with James Stewart, redirecting it there appears problematic as it's unusual to have a subtitle of a book redirect to the author. It seems best to delete per WP:XY, until someone creates Pedagogy of calculus which could then cover the topic. – Uanfala (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, as soon as I created it, I find other books of that same name, so I am putting those in the Calculus#Books section instead as Stewart's version isn't primary topic anymore. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Brexit 1975

[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, default to keep. Opinions are split between wanting to delete because this is a neologism based on Brexit 2016, and wanting to keep because this is an attested way to refer to the 1975 referendum. In the absence of overwhelming demonstrable harm, I'm closing this as no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 12:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV reduced to absurdity title - not historically accurate backdating term, UK didn't exit, Brexit != referendum, no evidence in article of use or in sources Widefox; talk 12:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a misnomer to describe either referendum as "Brexit". There was no 1975 Brexit. It's incorrect. Just taking one of those links, the title is "The EU referendum makes the campaign we had in 1975 look as mild as a vicar's tea party" and doesn't refer to the term "Brexit 1975". Widefox; talk 17:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid redirect from a subtopic. Reliable sources have retroactively began referring to the Euroskeptic camp in that referendum as the 1975 equivalent of the today's pro-Brexit camp.If you actually read some of the links you're talking about above, you would see that it refers to the Euroskeptic position in 1975 as Brexit several times: "It was 41 years ago that The Spectator first urged its readers to vote Brexit in a referendum," and "Apart from the communist Morning Star, The Spectator was in fact the only national publication to propose Brexit". Tag it as {{R from incorrect name}} and {{R from subtopic}}. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)(edited 21:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
I did quickly read it. Supporters aren't the same as 1975 Brexit. (continued below).. Widefox; talk 19:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I went to the wrong Spectator link above. The point still stands though. From the one you cited: "This brings us to the most dangerous contrast with 1975: a vote for Brexit this time will have consequences." This implies that in contrast to 2016 ("this time"), there was a previous opportunity to vote for Brexit in 1975. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"1975 Brexit vote" sure, "1975 Brexit" is an alternative universe. It didn't happen, just as 2016 World War Three didn't, despite folk warmongering. Big difference. Widefox; talk 11:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this redirect with the purpose of making the 1975 referendum easy to find. Redirects are sepcifically designed to make pages easy to find. To find United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975 won't be so easy otherwise. It isnt retroactively accurate but nor is it a aprt of the article, it is the article which requires accuracy; this ws a convenience and still is. How will people easily find the referendum otherwise? Plus what Patar says. The 1975 referendum is a highly relevant article in 2017 and we should do all we can to encourage easy access to it so people can be informed about that event which is subject to so much misinformation in real life. I can see no justification for deleting this. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would agree handy iff either referendum was known as "Brexit" which they aren't. Widefox; talk 17:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I know nobody really cares if junky redirects are kept, but this is pure POV to the point of being laughable. There's no way "Brexit 1975" is a plausible search term, considering the fact that the "word" Brexit was only coined last year. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's used by reliable sources, as demonstrated above, it's a valid {{R from non-neutral}}. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Literally the RS I read didn't have the term, no, but I'd consider more having to interpret it. I do agree that although it's literally wrong, but as a R from incorrect better etc and if it helps anyone I've nothing against it, despite being against conflating "Brexit" with the referendum or supporters. Pro Brexit 1975 supporters aren't 1975 Brexit - which of course didn't happen, the topic being no Brexit. One can see similar nonsense conflation accumulating in the dab Brexit (disambiguation) where everything including the referendum is Brexit, which it isn't. Widefox; talk 19:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a one-to-one match, but its a valid {{R from subtopic}}, namely the concept now referred to as Brexit, as it existed during the 1975 referendum (i.e. the camp opposing the UK in the EEC/EU). Refining to the section about the No camp is suboptimal because the history and background of both sides is discussed at length before that section. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A 1976 Brexit, 77, 78 would also be valid non Brexit dates where the same no Brexit happened, despite similar folk wanting it. Happy to let this one slide, as long as it's tagged for what it is as plausibly useful despite misleading. Widefox; talk 00:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No they wouldn't because there were no referendums on whether the UK should be in the EU/EEC in those years, so there would be nowhere valid to point those redirects. Since Exemplo347, has opposed, this technically can't be withdrawn, but if it's kept we should definitely add the above RCAT tags. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which POV is that, Exemplo347? As you had what no idea what my opinions on brexit are (oppose) and given my explanation your lack of assuming good faith sticks in the throat somewhat. I explained my reasns and they are not POV. Please WP:AGF and consider striking your out of line comment re POV. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough to backdate the expression Richard. I just object to the conflation of vote with leaving.
Patar, that's exactly my point - there was no Brexit in 1975. Widefox; talk 11:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be retracting any remarks here. "Brexit 1975" is a made up term, call it WP:OR, call it WP:SYNTH, call it anything you like - it's made up. What's next - "Brexit 410A.D." for when the Romans left? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (ec). Unfortunately many British politicians say "When we voted to leave the UK in 1975". We didn't. We voted on whether to stay in the European Union (well European Economic Community as it was at that time) after three years of joining it. When we (that is to say, the UK) joined the EEC in 1972, there was no referendum at all. These are facts easily forgotten by both sides for the sake of a soundbite. I am rather Orwellian on this, in that "the lie becomes truth" and so on, if unreliable sources like Wikipedia give them credence. Redirects don't have to be neutral, but I think they should be accurate, and Brexit 1975 is an anachronism in its true sense, by applying a modern term "Brexit" to something that was never called that at the time. If there are reliable sources for "Brexit" from 1975 or before, I should be glad to hear of them and we can add those to Wiktionary's etymology. In the meantime, this should be Deleted as essentially WP:OR. Si Trew (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I had not read Richard or Widefox comments before this but am posting now to avoid another EC. Si Trew (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need RS that "Brexit 1975" was used in 1975. I'm not too picky on it, but the more important thing is that "Brexit" was a word invented for the current (well, latest) campaign and is a back-formed anachronism to apply it to any previous campaign. If there are reliable sources that use "Brexit 1975" to mean the 1975 referendum, then fine, otherwise it is just WP:MADEUP and Wikipedia continues its reputation for being a pile of crap and not checking facts. World War II was not Brexit 1939 nor was the Battle of Waterloo Brexit 1815. It will take a while for things to settle, but I think "Brexit" as a term was invented within the EU, not in the UK (and it's not UKexit), but that thing alone requires qutie a lot of RS. WP:COMPETENCE. Si Trew (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Backronyms etc are OK per se, but the redirect jars in the way you've described. WW3 1962 (or anything similar [1]) isn't a redirect to Cuban Missile Crisis, or nuclear accidents/MAD events etc. It just a bit much of a stretch to be serious. Widefox; talk 12:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it's used in sources as shown by Patar knight. I might agree with SiTrew's general reasoning but I don't see how this can apply to redirects. The fact that the term wasn't used in 1975 isn't a reason for deletion, at least not any more than the fact that World War I wasn't used in 1915 would be a reason against that article's current title. – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Seasea

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 1#Seasea

Kohi jiko

[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) another kinda weird cross-language one. The lede gives it as Kōhī Jikō (which is red) as the transliteration from nihongo, which is fine, yes I would usually say well then this is just {{R from title without diacritics}}, but it's not really, because the name of the film to an English audience is not "Kohi jiko" but "Café Lumière", which is French of course. So it's kinda odd to have this rather three-steps-away transliteration by a bot. Deleting it will do no harm. 珈琲時光, its name in Japanese, is also red. I can perfectly understand creating those two Japanese transliterations, but in their absence, having this one kinda through a game of chinese whispers is a bit absurd. Si Trew (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Book learning

[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. There's general consensus that the current target is unsuitable but there isn't agreement on a retarget. Defaulting to delete as the relist attracted no further participation. Deryck C. 11:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to wikt:book learning, perhaps, education is a more broad topic, not sure if there are any more appropriate target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, now I have to make an article about ivory castles. Might be the chesspieces, might not be. Si Trew (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget, but not to rote learning. Rote learning is a topic that has an overlap with book learning, in that rote learning can be done from books (among other sources) and book learning can be (but isn't always) rote learning, so I think that makes a poor target. I'm not sure whether formal learning is the best target but it is better than rote learning. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK, it's a notable topic and I'm sure an article can be created on the concept. Education is too broad and doesn't offer any specifics, and both formal learning and and rote learning are not close enough. There's some overlap, but not enough where a redirect makes sense. -- Tavix (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Real Housewives of ISIS

[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. The redirect already targets The Real Housewives#Parodies, so no retargeting is necessary. -- Tavix (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the redirect article does not contain any information about the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but the relevant section Parodies is, oddly, collapsed. – Uanfala (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the collapsing from that section as such templates should not be used for article content (it is inaccessible to some readers) per MOS:COLLAPSE. I have suggested on the talk page that the section be trimmed and/or split off into a separate article, but the last message on that page was from 2014 so I don't expect a quick response. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is mentioned in a list, does it really need its own redirect? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really need to not have its own redirect? Apokrif (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2017_April_17&oldid=1143889530"