Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 7, 2017.

Samsung Galaxy J3 (2016)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy keep. This RfD was started by a user now blocked for disruption. This close is without prejudice to a renomination by anyone who wishes to present a coherent rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable but the smartphone is already in market but it delete this. one but Redirect not deleted take the RfD Atorres50 (talk) 21:42, 7 February 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.

Wikipedia:FaoPFC[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 both. Deryck C. 14:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sections do not exist, and these are WP:XNRs to a talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 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.

Samsung Galaxy J1 mini Prime[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 21#Samsung Galaxy J1 mini Prime

Azteca Deportes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep as filed by a disruptive user. This RfD did highlight that none of the proposed targets were adequate, and I am going to place an article here instead that makes more sense than any of the redirect options. Raymie (t • c) 02:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An IP is trying to delete this one but it's not eligible for AfD CSD PROD lets take the RfD instead. Atorres50 (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not a reason to delete a redirect. Why should it be deleted? - GB fan 20:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible yet? Any questions GB fan should it be deleted or not? Atorres50 (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Atorres50: when you nominate a redirect for deletion it is your responsibility to present a rationale for that action. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are the one that nominated it, are you saying it should be deleted or are you saying something else should happen. You need to specify what you think should happen. - GB fan 20:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Azteca (TV network)#Sports programming where this is mentioned (it isn't at the current target). Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Azteca 7#Sports it seems mentioned at section it isn't at current target Atorres50 (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore page it seems unsourced but it possibilities to expand that article Atorres50 (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an ip is trying to disrupt this article but it's blocked by DeltaQuad but talkpage revoked Atorres50 (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its possible to delete this page maybe within the possibilities Raymie (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC) (comment posted by Atorres50)[reply]
  • Someone is faking my identity here! I did not make this comment. The correct target is the one suggested by @Thryduulf:. Raymie (t • c) 21:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, wait. That's the article on the US network. The redirect here needs to be kept where it is. Raymie (t • c) 21:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turns out that this is the second time Atorres50 has done this. I am going to officially say Keep - the retarget solution from Thryduulf is insufficient (it fails to cover the Mexican networks where Azteca also has sports programming) and there are sports programs on Azteca Trece as well (including Liga MX fixtures and DeporTV, if program guides are any indication), so the Azteca 7 suggestion is also off target. To be honest, this needs to be an article on its own. Raymie (t • c) 22:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know anything about the subject, but the target I suggested is the only place I can currently find any mention of a station by this name. If there are others that use this name then maybe we should have a list or disambig? I don't think the presence of sports programming on a channel is a good reason to consider that a target of this redirect though - there needs to be some connection with this specific term. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: I'm working on an article for this topic. There are three big networks owned by Azteca, Azteca 7 and Azteca Trece in Mexico and Azteca (TV network) in the United States (usually referred to by its old name Azteca América). This sports division covers all of them. Raymie (t • c) 23:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck duplicate !votes by a disruptive user. I've now blocked Atorres50 for disruption and impersonation. -- Tavix (talk) 22:28, 7 February 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.

Ph.[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 (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

  • Not sure about Ph., but I would note that it can be used to refer to a King Philip (i.e. Philip II of Spain) --Nevé–selbert 02:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Ph. as there is clearly no primary topic for this, but kings Philip to the dab. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: As this is quickly becoming a WP:TRAINWRECK, I have decided to boldly split this nomination. Please feel free to clarify any remarks that might need clarifying. -- Tavix (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It could be used to refer to a King Philip, but is it? If there is evidence of it's use, then we should add King Philip to the dab page, but otherwise, it's not beneficial to add things we imagine might be abbreviated "Ph."—Ketil Trout (<><!) 01:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: @Ketiltrout: The English regnal year for 1554: 1 Mar. 1 – 1 Ph. & M.--Nevé–selbert 10:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Besides Phillip, what else is abbreviated "Ph."? -- Tavix (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • An attempt to answer my own question: There's philosophy, as in "Ph. D.", but is it ever abbreviated like that when it's not a Doctor of Philosophy? -- Tavix (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pointing to disambiguation page. Remember that the MediaWiki software treats leading capitalization oddly. Ph is the same as ph. And many users (especially new users) will type ph when they mean PH or even pH because they don't know that our links are so case-sensitive. Fewer uses will include the trailing period but that could also be a plausible typo. Rossami (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as is clearly this is not a Regnal Database, this is Wikipedia, a general encyclopedia. -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 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.

Transport delay[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 22#Transport delay

Baymam-Bet[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 restore article and send to AfD. There is consensus that these titles should not redirect to the current target, and no disagreement that places that are documented in reliable sources should have articles, however it is not clear whether the sources here are reliable. That is a question that AfD is far more competent to answer so that seems the best way forwards. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of redirect in target — Iadmc♫talk  09:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your research. Could it be possible that it is a formerly recognized name? The source of the redirected article makes it seem like it was listed on Google Maps at one point, and I believe Google Maps to be reliable. In any case, I think it'd be better to figure this out at AfD, perhaps bundled with the other places Iadmc menstions, so we can have a discussion on the merits of the article instead of the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment should've been posted with the relist notice, but didn't, I suppose because of formatting: I'm bundling these nominations. They did not have identical comments—you can see what they looked like before the relist here, but since they're obviously referring to the same place, their results should be linked. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore "Baymam-Bet" as stub. Tavix is correct that populated places are automatically notable. To verify this one's existence, I used the US National Geospatial Intelligence Agency's database, which is as unwieldy as it is authoritative. I don't think there's a way to give a direct link, but to see what I see, go here, type "bayma" into the name field, select "contains" to the right of the box, select Kyrgyzstan from the country list, and search. The first result is Baymam-Bet, with Baynam-Bet given as a variant name. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete there's no reliable evidence that this place exists, and given that the location that the sources give is a blank spot on a hillside, there's every reason to think that they aren't reliable. Saying that "all populated places are notable" is not an argument that counters "a name in a list cannot be presumed to be a real place." Mangoe (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Mangoe, do you consider the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency unreliable?? --BDD (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They point to a spot on a mountainside where there is absolutely nothing but trees. Other sources point to different nearby mountainsides with the same lack of settlement. The fact that the Kyrgystani government doesn't acknowledge the place is also a problem. Look, the notion that a name, a set of coordinates, and the words "populated place" are good enough evidence has proven incorrect over and over; the only consistently reliable sources have proven to be national mapping agencies and their equivalents, reporting on their own territory. We don't know where the Geonames data is coming from, but it is quite obviously not coming from people looking at satellite and aerial photography of these foreign countries. So no, I do not consider them, of themselves, a reliable source for the existence of places outside the USA. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources are found. What we have at the moment is an entry in a one database and an absence of an entry in another, which suggest that this place might or might not exists and even if it exists the article couldn't hope to give any reliable information. – Uanfala (talk) 15:18, 22 February 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.

Gondola (meme)[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) 15:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For criterion #2. I'm unfamiliar with either meme but I can't see any connection between "gondola" and this concept used to mock pedophiles? Am I missing something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, gondola is based off of spurdo sparde, which is based off of pedobear. Gondola is spurdo sparde with very long legs. Hope that clears it up. Ethanbas (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No yet, not for me. I see you've created the double redirect Spurdo to Spurdo Spärde, which in turn redirects to Pedobear. I have no idea what Spurdo/Spurdo Spärde is but no reliable source that I've found connects Gondola to the pedobear. Is this your original research or is it based on something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, I'm puzzled by your claim that even spurdo is in anyway connected to pedophilia. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/gondola doesn't mention it. I think we may be dealing with a little garden of misleading and erroneous redirects. And given the serious nature of the crime, I think we need a little more rigour, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/how-a-leftist-finnish-meme-became-a-white-supremacist-comic "Spurdo Spärde is a poorly drawn character based on the sprite image of Pedobear.". For gondola: encyclopediadramatica. se/ Gondola "Though at first it seems to be a crude corruption of Spurdo Spärde (which is itself a crude corruption of Pedobear), the creativity and depth that lies behind the former is far more self-evident. Gondola may be best described as a meme that captures a sublime and indescribable state of being. He is placed in scenes either abstract, absurd, or beautiful, yet always maintains a distance and seldom interacts with the scene itself. Indeed, Gondola functions as an observer. His role is simply to let himself exist within the world and let time pass by without interference. The inclusion of calm or atmospheric music is often used to elicit a similar emotional response from the viewer. Viewing a static image or animation, we too are drawn into Gondola's role, witnessing a scene and letting it pass by. Gondola helps the viewer understand how a passive attitude to the world can facilitate an ethos of contentment and inner peace. In this sense, Gondola may be the most important meme in recent memory through its encouragement of us all to pass away our worries and anxieties and just experience life for what it is." and http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/gondola "Gondola is a mutation of Spurdo Spärde consisting of a head placed directly on a pair of legs with no arms or torso. The character does not speak and is usually depicted as melancholic or sad." gondola is a mutation of spurdo, which is a mutation of pedobear. not my own research. Ethanbas (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've leave it to consensus to decide if there is a strong enough x ≅ y association to warrant a redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm adding the Spurdo redirects to this. Spurdo and Gondola are both spin-offs of Pedobear, and while we may choose a different direction for them, since neither are mentioned right now, it makes sense to disuss them together. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Thank you. I wasn't aware of all this when I started an Rfd. And certainly Spurdo→Spurdo Spärde should be retargeted, if kept, simply for WP:2R, but that doesn't require a discussion. (Or maybe you intended to list that fourth, @BDD:, because you've listed one twice?) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all no reliable news coverage of such terms. Knowyourmeme doesn't count. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly is discussed elsewhere, such as on this blog. Again, no mention of any association with "pedobear," which concerns me. And AngusWOOF's comment applies equally to "The Philosopher’s Meme," Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete all. There is apparently no coverage of this meme on Wikipedia, and certainly nothing to explain the relationship between the search term and the target. Based on this thread, if you understand the redirect then you already know far, far more information than is ever likely to be on Wikipedia about it and so it's not helping anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 8 February 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.

Liposomal vitamin c[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 19#Liposomal vitamin c

Tell Me How I Die[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) 20:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that reason 10 for deletion of redirects applies here, which is that this redirect could plausibly be expanded into a full article about the movie Tell me how I die and the page about Ryan Higa doesn't contain any information about the movie apart from kind of the genre plus that he was cast in it. I'd vote for deletion so it can be remade as an article about the movie. Tobiasinator (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The deletion would have no point if it's you wanting to create the content, as you could just create the content over the redirect (unless you feel that strongly about being the article's "creator" and are unwilling to write something at a redirect somebody else made). I don't agree that one line on Ryan Higa constitutes "virtually no information", and this one line could be expanded. Reason 10 doesn't seem to apply to musician's articles when nobody's written anything in the prose about their new release and the only information at the article is a listing in the discography section. Nobody asks for articles to be deleted then, they just create them over the redirect if they want to. Ss112 17:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so as to create the article, which has been listed in Hollywood Reporter Entertainment Weekly and Los Angeles Times. It shouldn't point to one of the stars unless he or she produced the film. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I tried looking for information on it, and it was supposed to have its premiere at the Brooklyn Horror Film Festival [1] but I don't see it? [2] [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is until and unless someone actual drafts an article showing that the movie meets our generally accepted inclusion criteria. (A couple of movie reviews don't do it for me which is why I don't think REDLINK applies yet.)
    And let me echo Ss112 - when you are fairly sure that the movie is ready for it's own article, just overwrite the redirect. No need to delete it first. Rossami (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Higa is not a producer, screenwriter, or director, or so strongly associated that the entire career is based on this film, so there's no point in redirecting to him. At this point, the actual producers, screenwriters, and directors are not notable for their own article and neither is the company backing it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that this movie does fulfil the Wikipedia requirements for having its own article but I can't create it myself because of the lack of time. There are others with much more skill and much more time than me. Currently, in my opinion, this redirect only confuses and actually discourages people to create the article. The threshold to overwrite a redirect is, in my opinion, much higher than to simply create an article.
PS: I added the missing ]] in your intrawiki link, Rossami. I hope that's ok.--Tobiasinator (talk) 00:41, 15 February 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.

Template:TLC and Template:TLC songs[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 and keep, respectively. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TLC should be redirected to Template:Tlc instead of Template:TLC (group) to avoid confusion between the group, Template:Tlc and some templates related to TLC (TV network). Beyoncetan (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. TLC is ambiguous, so should not be used for articlespace content navigation -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Template:TLC songs was not a redirect when you added it. I assume that you meant to move it to the target you stated, and thus did so. Pppery 03:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: Yes, I did mean it! Thank you for helping me! Beyoncetan (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. It is okay to rely on WP:SMALLDETAILS in template shortcuts. Current transclusions of these templates use them correctly and the templates are so obviously different that anyone caught using the wrong template will quickly notice. Deryck C. 21:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget {{TLC}}, but keep {{TLC songs}} as that's unambiguous. -- Tavix (talk) 03:00, 21 February 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.

Maui (Samoan mythology)[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, wrong venue: this is a case for a requested move. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be the main page title. The article only refers to the subject as "Maui" and does not mention "Ti'iti't"; all other variations of the article use Maui. Serendipodous 13:49, 7 February 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.

Policies and guidelines[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. 14:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or disambiguate. Wikipedia is not the primary topic of this term, so this does not help the readership. The topic of guideline and policy are not about Wikipedia. Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines are not at the target location, so this doesn't help editors either, since WP:POLICY and WP:GUIDELINE lead elsewhere. The term "policies and guidelines" are used by many entities that are not Wikipedia. -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 06:47, 7 February 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.

Barbara P. Bush[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 Barbara Bush (disambiguation). -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both should point to the same target, note that the latter was a redirect from a page move that still has links in mainspace as I am writing this. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have fixed the links in mainspace. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:11, 7 February 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.

Laura "Pickles" Bush[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. Rossami (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation, no mention in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:45, 7 February 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.

Terrorism in Switzerland[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. 14:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Terrorism in Switzerland but no article on the general topic, the current target certainly is misleading, WP:REDLINK for it is plausible to have an article at this exact title. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:21, 7 February 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.

Terroriᶘm[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 this redirect. I'll leave the creation of Terroriſm to editorial discretion. -- Tavix (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:R#DELETE 5 nonsense, I have no idea what this is, perhaps also a WP:R#DELETE 8 obscure synonym, Google turns up exactly 22 results, most of them are dictionary sites in Chinese, which, I assume, are just copying the association from Wikipedia. Exactly 2 views in 90 days. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move without redirect to Terroriſm. Per WhisperToMe's edit summary on creation, this is intended to be the historic spelling of "terrorism" giving File:Terrorism2 london times 1-30-1795.jpg as example evidence of this spelling, using a long s (ſ). However instead of U+17F LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S (ſ) as intended, it actually uses the visually similar U+1D98 LATIN SMALL LETTER ESH WITH RETROFLEX HOOK (see Esh (letter)). Googling for instances of the use of the long s in digitised documents is extremely difficult because Google is case insensitive and "ſ" is a lower-case form of the letter "S" used at the beginning and middle of words, "s" was originally used only at the end of words. This means Google does not distinguish "terroriſm" from "terrorism" from "TERRORISM". Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't old English wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Old English is not relevant here in the slightest. The cited usage is from 1795, which post-dates even Early Modern English which transitioned into fully modern English no later than the end of the 17th Century around a hundred years previously. The long s survived in handwriting until the early-mid 19th century so instances of this alternative spelling could easily occur until that point. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We've had a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_8#Hor.C5.BFe. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. If you type “Terroriſm” into the search box you get all the things you would expect starting with with “terrorism”; “Terroriᶘm” largely works the same, except the redirect is in first place, so deleting it will actually make searching easier. Not that I can imagine anyone using either to search, and there is no circumstance under which they can appear in articles; editors should use modern English, modernising archaic typography such as in quotes, per MOS:QUOTATIONS.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The search box is only one method of finding Wikipedia articles. There are people who use other methods which need redirects such as this to find what they are looking for - and while we do not use archaic spellings in our articles we do reference archaic documents and people do look to Wikipedia to find information when reading archaic documents or more recent sources that do reproduce the old typography. I'm really struggling to think of any circumstance in which it could be at all harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • what “other methods” ? I just tried a Google search with “Terroriſm” and it found articles to do with terrorism, with the article here first. If someone is reading an archaic document they should know already that ſ is s; if they don’t then reading any English sentence containing the former should be enough for them to pick it up, with s being so common a letter.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Should != does, and methods of getting here include direct URL entry (yes, people do do this) and similar such as using enwp.org. See my comments above regarding Google's case insensitivity for why lack of search results for this spelling is not a reliable indicator of lack of uses. Thryduulf (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • If we were to not delete things as people might in theory access them by direct URL entry we would not delete anything. But if they do, for some very odd reason, enter the URL of a non-existent article, they get to a page which in this case has ‘Search for "Terroriſm" in existing articles.’ prominently displayed, the first result of which is Terrorism. As for a “circumstance in which it could be at all harmful”, the problem is if we err on the side of allowing redirects from implausible, unused misspellings/typographical variations it opens the door to editors to start creating them, potentially dozens for every word and so hundreds for every article, and quickly there are far far more redirects on en.wp than articles, all unused and unnecessary.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • @JohnBlackburne: I almost exclusively use direct URL entry to navigate Wikipedia and to determine whether something has an article or not. Wikipedia should set up redirects for the express purpose of catering to Wikipedians who prefer using direct URL entry. I know there are other people who do direct URL entry.
            • In my opinion any evidence of past (to any time period) usage of a spelling means that it is "plausible". When I intended to make the redirect I cited "File:Terrorism2 london times 1-30-1795.jpg" for that express reason.
            • WhisperToMe (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • But people can’t type such characters; you did not manage it, creating the redirect at the wrong place, even though you could read the text and knew the correct target. Someone who does not know that Terroriſm is the same as Terrorism is going to find it even harder than you to type ſ. It always needs to be typed in as it only exists in images like that – any time it is converted to text, such as by OCR, modern typography will be used.
              • And if we create a redirect for Terroriſm, there are many other words which have similar typographical variants – any word with an 's' in it. Should we create redirects for all of them, to every article with a word with 's' in its title? As surely all of them exist in the archives somewhere, from a time when the only form of mass communication was print.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete We don't need to support pre-modern English typography, especially since search engines already know how to make the substitution. Mangoe (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: What about dealing with old documents typed as-is? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can’t imagine how this would happen. When it‘s scanned and appears as a GIF or PNG the reader will recognise it as Terrorism and so search for that. Even if they wanted to they would find it incredibly hard to type in “ſ” – the only way I know how is to open up the Unicode browser and spend a minute finding it. Or if it’s already been scanned then it will normally be converted to use modern typography. Even if someone manages to type it in, or comes across a scan that preserves archaic typography and copies it, both Google’s search engine and our search engine will get them to the right article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:21, 15 February 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.

Blue quartz[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 discussion is leaning towards a consensus to keep, partly because other types of quartz also redirect to Quartz and partly because relevant information has been added to the article. Well done CoffeeWithMarkets and all. Deryck C. 11:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue quartz is not mentioned in the target article. RedPanda25 14:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. From what I can find on Google, blue quartz is just quartz that happens to appear blue - either due to inclusions or Rayleigh scattering. However there are a lot of "new age" and alternative medicine-related hits. For this reason I'm going to ping the Rocks and minerals and Alternative views projects (the latter as the alternative medicine project is inactive) seeking their input. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My research also concludes that blue quartz is merely quartz that is blue. The current article at Quartz mentions several other colors but not blue. That appears to be a deficiency of the article, however, not of the redirect. Keep with a recommendation to improve the target. Rossami (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you check the list of incoming redirects for quartz, you will also find redirects for milk quartz, milky quartz, rose quartz, and fruit quartz. Ideally, the section of the article about the different varieties of quartz would include information about blue quartz; if it did, I would recommend that we refine the target to the appropriate section of the article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since 'Dumortierite quartz' appears to be a notable enough subject detailed by reliable sources, I went ahead and added some information about it to the main 'quartz' article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:57, 19 February 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_February_7&oldid=1088107483"