Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 10, 2020.

Wikipedia in the media[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 Wikipedia in culture. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They should point at the same target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Target to Wikipedia in culture. They obviously should point to the same place; since WiC is the main article, that's the logical choice. TJRC (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2020 (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.

Wikipedia in Health Professions Education/Practice Being a Wikipedian[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded XNRs. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:07, 10 October 2020 (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.

Fuck-you-money[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 18#Fuck-you-money

Quandt family[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 Quandt. I went ahead and made a separate listing on that page for anyone who is actually in this particular Quandt family and moved the other entries to a separate list on the same page. That should satisfy all involved parties. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 14:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Günther Quandt where there is substantive information about the family, rather than the list at the current cross-domain target Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listify (or alternatively keep), just as likely to refer only to Johanna Quandt and her descendants. —Kusma (t·c) 20:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Quandt for now. We could tweak it a bit to make the relationships more clear. Converting to some sort of article is probably a good idea; see de:Quandt (Familie) from the German Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Günther Quandt, as it contains content about the family and a more to-the-point list of related pages in its See also. signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: given that two retargeting options have been presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:23, 10 October 2020 (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.

Wikipedia:PDF[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 disambiguate. I didn't ignore the possibilities suggested by Deacon Vorbis, but didn't know of a good way to describe them. Anyone can add those if desired. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target page does not even mention "PDF". I am not sure what help page discusses the "Download as PDF" function, and there may also be a help page that explains how to reference a PDF (edit: found it: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Linking_to_pages_in_PDF_files), and so on, so maybe a disambig of sorts could be used. But right now this is a weird Easter Egg redirect. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WP:PAGELINKS and add "WP:PNG" to {{Shortcut}} there. The image use policy didn't even mention PDFs when the redirect was created (although it does seem like it should, at least once). Hyacinth (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support dab various uses are possible. (t · c) buidhe 09:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per all above. Lots of ways Wikipedia uses PDFs, it seems, so users could be referring to several different things. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:28, 19 October 2020 (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.

Trump campaign controversies[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. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also applies to 2020 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was a good idea, BDD, and set out to create one, then noticed how many controversies there were, and thought that perhaps there are other things I could do today..... ;-) SilkTork (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 10 October 2020 (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.

Scroggins[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 Swap with dab page. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the ship isn't the primary topic for this name. We could move Scroggins (surname) or Scroggins (disambiguation) to the base title, instead, but I'm not sure which would be better. (Note: this is a Neelix redirect.) Thoughts? - Eureka Lott 18:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "Scoggins" is not the primary topic for this name. I support Scroggins (disambiguation) to the base title as this seems to make the most sense. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When in doubt, the dab should be at the base name. I support that in this case. (t · c) buidhe 09:16, 11 October 2020 (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.

Slaver Rebellion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 18#Slaver Rebellion

Fatima Ladan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 18#Fatima Ladan

Gadhawa Rural Municipality ( गढवा गाउँपालिका)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was left over from a move back in August 2018 to "shorten [the target's] title." As per the precedent with Sihi( सीहि), I'm not sure if this is really worth keeping, since we don't have the correctly formatted Gadhawa Rural Muncipality (गढवा गाउँपालिका), or गढवा गाउँपालिका on here or the Hindi Wikipedia. Regards, SONIC678 16:56, 10 October 2020 (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.

Mavais for[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious relevance. DrKay (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can't find any evidence that this word exists. It may be gibberish or a misspelling of the French word mauvais (bad, wrong). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • mavais in French could also be a misspelling of m'avais ("[sing. subj.] had [verb] me"). for doesn't mean anything in French, but it could be a misspelling of fort ("strong(ly)")... but that would still just give us "[sing. subj.] had strongly [verb] me," which isn't any more helpful. Delete. Tamzin (they/them) | o toki tawa mi. 21:41, 10 October 2020 (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.

List of law firms by profits per partner[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 List of largest law firms by profits per partner. signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect links to List of largest United States-based law firms by profits per partner when it should link to List of largest law firms by profits per partner. If the search doesn't specify American law firms, then the redirect naturally should include all law firms. Leaving the redirect in this form may cause the misconception that no list exists for global law firms. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom, obviously an improvement over the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2020 (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.

Applying machine learning at scale[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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While decision intelligence work does concern itself with applying machine learning at scale, it is not the only means of doing so (see this Scholar search [1]). I don't think we currently have another suitable target so I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 15:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Rosguill: Keep - Actually, by definition, "decision intelligence" includes all the means of doing so. All the results of the search you provided are examples of decision intelligence. The lead of the decision intelligence article is a bit misleading. Decision intelligence is the application of machine intelligence algorithms, being distinct from the development of those algorithms. It is impossible to have a machine learning application without any machine learning algorithms in it. The very act of placing a machine learning algorithm in application software is decision intelligence. That's what it means: "building machine learning applications using machine learning algorithms". The idea behind decision intelligence is that using the term "machine intelligence" leads people to the field of designing machine intelligence algorithms (machine learning research), rather than to the building of machine intelligence applications using those algorithms. Hence the term "decision intelligence". "Not having another suitable target" is a very strong argument for keeping this redirect. It is the only suitable target available.    — The Transhumanist   20:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit skeptical of this interpretation, given that Scholar search results for "decision intelligence" "applied machine learning" returns exactly 1 result. signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:53, 10 October 2020 (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.

37269[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This number was allegedly the target's American Communist Party membership number. Judging from Google Books [2], the number isn't actually used to refer to her in the way that, say, 24601 refers to Jean Valjean or 46664 to Nelson Mandela. There are also French and German towns (Verneuil-sur-Indre and Eschwege) which have this number as their postcode. Not sure whether these bits of trivia are worth a disambiguation page, or instead we should just delete and let the search engine do its job. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This seems to be a fairly insignificant bit of trivia. I can't access the WaPo article that's mentioning this, but it certainly doesn't seem to warrant a redirect. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:55, 10 October 2020 (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/2020_October_10&oldid=984586445"