Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 11, 2019.

Jesse fonseca[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in its targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete searches refer to non-notable business people. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:51, 12 February 2019 (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.

ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest deletion. This is the punchline of an obscure computer programming joke, along the lines of "if the language after C was called C++, then the language after COBOL should be called ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL". I can't imagine who would look it up and even the joke isn't all that well known; I could hardly find it in print sources via searching Google Books. Equinox ◑ 19:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. On first glance this is very implausible, but it's been around since 2002(!) and got just over 300 hits last year and not quite 100 more the previous year. This suggests that there is some value in keeping it, or at least doing something with it other than deletion. I'm not immediately sure what that something is though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is referenced in reliable sources [1],
  • Delete. While this joke is better known in the COBOL community, I agree it is still to obscure too keep this redirect. Googling for sources doesn't turn up any notable reference to this joke, so I don't think we can even include it in actual COBOL page.EdwardH (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Googling for sources doesn't turn up any notable reference to this joke, so I don't think we can even include it in actual COBOL page. John C. Mitchell mentions it in one of his textbooks [2]. (FOLDOC also cites an impressive-sounding source for the joke - the ACM SIGPLAN newsletter for April 1992 [3] - but that actually turns out just to be a reprint of a Usenet post.) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you google "ADD 1 TO COBOL" this redirect is what pops up and could explain the views (though I don't know with certainly if that was true before the nomination). Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A pointless relic of Wikipedia's early days. Stan (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2019 (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.

Parturient[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. The community can't decide whether retarget or disambiguate is better (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

"Parturient" isn't mentioned in the target, so someone who searches for this in search of a definition is left none the wiser. This might be best converted to a soft redirect to Wiktionary, or deleted so that the Wiktionary entry appears alongside possibly useful Wikipedia articles when one searches for this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, parturition is mentioned (in the infobox). Childbirth is human parturition, while "parturition" redirects to the article. I would expect "parturition" to redirect to birth instead, because that would be more accurate. And I would therefore also expect "parturient" to redirect there (note that one of the links from "parturient" is in Cotswold sheep). Treat as a veterinarian matter, therefore. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I retargeted parturition from birth to childbirth yesterday, because it's mentioned in the latter but not (or only in a reference) in the former. Perhaps I should have brought it to RfD instead. Some dictionary definitions of "parturition" define it as synonyous with childbirth (e.g. Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Britannica), though some don't (Cambridge), and Collins treats childbirth as part of the American English definition but not the British English. If you or someone else were to add a mention of the word to the birth article I'd be happy for parturition to redirect there. (There's a separate question of whether a mention of "parturition" at either/any target is sufficient for a redirect from "parturient" to be useful; my feeling is that it is not.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the issues lie in the articles, not the redirects. As for utility: if a user tries a term in the search box, and gets nothing at all, they are no further forward. If they are sent to a synonym and don't know why, they are still somewhat informed. It depends which search they use, they may find places an uncommon term occurs, and learn from context. I would have thought that adding a dicdef of "parturition" to birth, as a veterinarian term, would be a service to the encyclopedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no possibility of "getting nothing at all" though, apart from in the very unlikely event of the wiktionary entry parturition (or parturient) being deleted. So long as the Wiktionary entries exist they'll be shown in the sidebar of Wikipedia searches. I agree with your final sentence. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Arms & Hearts: remember that not everybody will see search results (it depends on how they arrived at the title and what platform they are using at least), and not everybody see sister project links - e.g. I don't when using the Android app. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to officially add parturition (and in turn, the other variants) to this discussion since it's been discussed enough. If they are kept in some way, it may make sense to keep them together.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and add in a {{Wiktionary}} link for good measure. –wbm1058 (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget back to birth per the previous RfD and the above since the term is not specific to humans. I think the Star Trek episode is best handled with a hatnote since "birth" would be the primary topic in my opinion. -- Tavix (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New opinions seem to still be coming in...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2019 (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.

Adélie Linux[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this redirect, it makes no sense (reasons 5 and 10). While Adélie shares a few similarities with Alpine, the two distros are not related; Adélie's origins lie elsewhere (the project started as a Gentoo overlay). Furthermore, Adélie isn't even mentioned in the Alpine article. The founder of Adélie also thinks the redirect should be removed, and commented on its talk page. --FalconL (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. (Disclosure: I'm on Adélie's core) Adélie at one point did a lot of work to be somewhat compatible with Alpine, but was never a fork or derivative of Alpine Linux. In addition, it has rather different use-cases. We're not yet notable enough to have our own Wikipedia page, so this can't be solved by someone simply doing some research and fleshing things out. Therefore, I'm in favour of deletion of the redirect until such time as we make it big, or at least get mentioned in a few trade rags :) Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2019 (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.

Module:Rail[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 22#Module:Rail

List of male rappers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 22#List of male rappers

Media file formats[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 19#Media file formats

Salvo (comics)[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) 03:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No information at target. There was a decision to delete this article in 2010 ([4]). Namenamenamenamename (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC) The same can be said of Static (Marvel Comics), Elysia (comics), Tartarus (Marvel Comics), and Seth (Neo). Namenamenamenamename (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:09, 11 February 2019 (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.

Template:Infobox GAA player3[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. (I shouldn't have relisted it.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and not a good redirect name as {{Infobox GAA}} has itself been moved and there is no GAA player2 for there to be a 3. Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:09, 11 February 2019 (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.

Nordic cuisine[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. (I shouldn't have relisted it.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic cuisine and Scandinavian don't really exist (or at least if they do, no-one has yet written an article about the topic/s). The category has 5 entries which are not really about Scandinavian cuisine per se, and splits into subcategories for constituent nations. I suggest delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:08, 11 February 2019 (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.

10^40[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) 22:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting randomly created numbers are WP:COSTLY B dash (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It says "Cosmology: The Eddington–Dirac number is roughly 1040." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2019 (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.

City That Never Sleeps (city)[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 The City That Never Sleeps (nickname). Per WP:RELIST, I see consensus, so I'm closing this prior to 7 days passing the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense to have this, especially because it redirects to a page where the word "city" is already in the title anyways. Seems redundant to have the word city twice in the same title. Goveganplease (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to (nickname). Good find! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2019 (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/2019_February_11&oldid=884533240"