Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 18, 2012

Neofelid[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 retarget to Felidae. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete I stumbled on this today, pointing to Felis. No sign of the word in the article. I redirected it to Neofelis, but thought better we delete as Google searches by me including Scholar and also searches by a Wikipedian who seems to be an expert who searched for it in places available to him could find it. It looks like some kind of a mistake; not a real word. Chrisrus (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect to Neofelis. Neofelid is a legitimate grammatical construction for the adjectival form of Neofelis. An exact google search for neofelid returns a number of legitimate uses including this, this, this and this. By the way, I have not yet been able to verify the content in that last link but if true, it suggests that a retarget to Machairodontinae may be even better. Rossami (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually a term that's in use in the literature (and not just in the misspellings and unreliable sources that Rossami cites): see [1]. However, it not used for Neofelis, but apparently for some group of modern-type cats, as opposed to older "paleofelids". Perhaps it should redirect to Felidae, or perhaps the term is obscure enough that we can simply delete it; it certainly should not redirect to Neofelis. Ucucha (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right. It's used as the opposite of paleofelid. As far as I can tell neither the article Felidae nor any other Wikipedia article knows about these terms or their referents, so we have no good place to send a user. It's pretty ambiguous as it seems a term for any Neofelis animal also. Huh...Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait! Wikipedia does seem to know something about the term paleofelid. It's here: Carnivora#Distinguishing_features, in the third paragraph, the one about the Feloidea. In the first sentence, the term "paleofelid" refers to the Nimravidae. If "neofelid" means something like "not a nimravid", what would be the best target for the redirect? Chrisrus (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe it is simply a synonym for "Felidae"; "paleofelid" appears to refer to the Nimravidae, a different family. I haven't seen any evidence in reliable sources that "neofelid" is ever used for Neofelis specifically. Ucucha (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was just looking at some of these articles and thinking the same thing: Felidae. Can this be confirmed? Also, it's nice when the word you search for actually appears in the article to which you are directed. Could we get the term "Neofelid" or "Neofelidae" into the article Felidae in an article-improving way? That is, if our belief could be confirmed. Also, some sort of disambiguation technique, a disambiguation page or hatnote system or some such, might be in order. Chrisrus (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2012 (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.

Marine Mammal Protection Act (disambiguation)[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 per WP:INTDABLINK and WP:SNOW. The WP:INTDABLINK policy requires redirects like this and the consensus of everyone except the nominator is that the policy does and should apply in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bot created redirect that was recently created and is an implausible typo. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The target is a disambiguation page. How is this redirect implausible? Keep. By the way, you may disagree with the bot's purpose but in this case it performed as designed. There is no typo involved anywhere. Rossami (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see either a typo or anything implausible. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. Is "Marine" misspelled? Is "Mammal"? Where is the typo? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what I meant to say is that it is an implausab;e search string. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that does not give guidance for an unused dab page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a funny thing to say when you're the one who ignored the above guideline and orphaned the page. - Eureka Lott 00:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am getting confused here. I suppose that you know that there is a Marine Mammal Protection Act dab page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is exactly why there needs to be a Marine Mammal Protection Act (disambiguation) redirect. That way, if somebody wants to point to the disambiguation page, it will be clear that they did not accidentally link there while intending to link to one of the articles on the disambiguation page. bd2412 T 15:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Why would someone link to Marine Mammal Protection Act (disambiguation) when Marine Mammal Protection Act exists? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a typo.--Lenticel (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:INTDABLINK. This redirect not only conforms with a longstanding and useful policy, it is required by it. bd2412 T 02:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
That does not seem relevant. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, you have half a dozen editors agreeing that this redirect should be kept, including some of Wikipedia's most experienced disambiguators. Most of us have indicated that this specific policy requires it, and is applicable to this particular instance. Please consider the possibility that we are correct in believing that this policy should be applied in this instance, even if you don't see the reason why. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
That does not seem relevant. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's my turn now: Seriously? Did you read the paragraph How to link to a disambiguation page? Here is what it says:
To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect—for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America". (If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with {{R to disambiguation page}}.) This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. (For use in navboxes, see the {{D'}} template.) There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect instead of linking directly to the disambiguation page; redirects are cheap and are basically transparent to the reader.
I don't see how you can claim that is not "relevant"; it directly and specifically addresses the situation you asked about. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. There many (very, very, many) of these pages where "x (disambiguation)" redirects to "x". They are used when a subject is so ambiguous and/or none of the subtopics are more individually notable than the others. See Newtown. There are so many Newtowns that it is impossible to generalize and have a redirect to the "most likely page the searcher is looking for. However, it is common practice to have a disambiguation page for anything ambiguous, so a disambiguation page ("x (disambiguation)") is created to redirect to the home of the actual page, "x". In this case neither of the acts are more notable than the other, so the plain old Marine Mammal Protection Act page is used as the disambiguation page. "Pepper" @ 21:03, 22 April 2012 (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.

Acquired factor[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. Ruslik_Zero 16:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, age is one type of acquired factor, but the two terms are not synonymous. For example, the article Acenocoumarol contains a sentence that identifies both age and body mass index as "acquired factors"; thus, the current redirect appears to be misleading (like having "Mammal" be a redirect to "Cat") although I'm not sure what the correct solution is. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete too vague to be useful as a redirect. I did a search for plausible targets and probably make a dab of sorts but failed--Lenticel (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete many other things unrelated to age can also be acquired. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is an "acquired factor", then? How do we know age and body mass index are acquired factors? It seems to me that either we should have an article explaining what this is, or if it is no more than a dicdef, a soft redirect to a Wiktionary entry defining it. bd2412 T 15:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
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.

Joonas Korpisalo[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to a single sentence about the player. This player may very well be notable in the near future himself. Would be better served as a red link. DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. Redirects from a non- or semi-notable person to a more notable family member are routine. If/when he becomes notable in his own right, the redirect can easily be overwritten with content. Redlinks are better when it is patently obvious that Wikipedia wants an article at that title. Borderline cases (and this still feels like one to me) are better supported by a redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. --→gab 24dot grab← 16:20, 4 May 2012 (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.

Kyle Moir[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only links to a list of people who won an award. Better served by being a red link incase the player ends up meeting WP:NHOCKEY in the near future. DJSasso (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This title failed a PROD deletion in 2008. I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence that he clearly meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria now. If/when he does, however, the redirect can be easily overwritten with content. In the meantime, the redirect points readers to at least something useful. Rossami (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. --→gab 24dot grab← 16:21, 4 May 2012 (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.

SimCity (2013 computer game)[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 - article moved to SimCity (2013 video game) per WP:NCVG and no less than eleven assorted redirects all now point to that. JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "computer game" should never be used on a disambig page. So it shouldn't even exist as a possible redirect. Furthermore the game is stated to not even have mac support, so PC would seem apt. JamaUtil (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Due to the extensive move wars going on, we have know idea which of the titles other websites might be linking to. We therefore need to keep all of the redirects as we have so that we don't kill other websites links. This keep vote applies no matter what title is finally chosen for the article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No opinion on which is the best title for this page (the rule against "computer game" seems a bit arbitrary) but I see no reason to delete the redirect. It is not confusing or harmful, it helps to document a complicated series of page moves, it helps control link rot and it may be useful to a new reader who doesn't know that obscure naming rule. Rossami (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep whilst constant moves continue. Move article back to SimCity (2013 video game) - The new location for the article SimCity (2013 PC game) is also against the wp:vg consensus. Platform disambiguations are only used if the title is a version specific remake of an existing title. It seems the OP is intent on moving the article to any disambiguation as long as it doesn't reside at SimCity (2013 video game). All of their moves have been against consensus, none of the moves have been explained. Suggest Admin combines this request with the 16 April request and the explanations and views there. - X201 (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move article back to SimCity (2013 video game) and redirect there. Same argument as on the relevant discussion -- long-standing WP:VG naming convention. This move shouldn't have happened while the discussion was in progress. Besides, due to the moves, all redirects will now be kept anyway. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:28, 18 April 2012 (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/2012_April_18&oldid=1144488966"