Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 10, 2012

Uniform motion[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 retargetted by user:786b6364. Rossami (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Points to a nonexistent section, the exact text "uniform motion" doesn't appear on the page it points to, and the topic may warrant a article all by it's self. It should be replaced with an article or deleted or pointed was where useful. Tideflat (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stubify. Hmm, this gets a lot of hits and we really ought to have something at this title. Kinematics isn't brilliant as you say (and quickly goes over my head), the only use of "uniform" on that page are the caption of an image describing "nonuniform circular motion" (I'm guessing that's the opposite of what "uniform motion" is) and the Kinematics#Kinematics of constant acceleration section, which is both a scary looking place to arrive and this Reference Desk question implies is not the same sort of motion anyway. Motion (physics) is an obvious possible target, but the word "uniform" is not used at all on that page and there is no section there that is obvious (to my distinctly nonspecialist eyes) as being relevant. Constant motion redirects to an article about a progressive metal album (it's the title of a track from the album), and Constant Speed (lowercase doesn't exist) takes you to Speed which is a very lightweight article that doesn't really deal with the topic. I'm not sure what to recommend here to be honest - writing a stub would probably be good, possibly the best thing. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stubbed Alright I have written a stub. I would like someone to check it over and correct problems. It needs to be bigger, but I didn't find more info on the web. Tideflat (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Kinematics#Kinematics_of_constant_acceleration. Thryduulf, you say that's "a scary looking place to arrive", but it's simply what the subject refers to. You can't really fault an article/section for involving math when it's dealing with a physics topic. Instead of creating a stub, we should focus on improving the clarity of this section. The fact that this section isn't explained spectacularly doesn't merit an additional article on the same subject. 786b6364 (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the stub that has been written is expandable at all, even if just to a slightly longer paragraph, that does a better job of explaining what uniform motion is than the kinematics article. Yes it's a physics topic that requires maths, but for the non-specialist it's better to have a non-frightening introduction with a link or progression to the formulas rather than arriving there unexpectedly. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about retargeting to Acceleration#Uniform_acceleration? It has a bit more explanation and less math, and so perhaps looks friendlier to the non-specialist? 786b6364 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree with that as uniform motion is when an object is not accelerating. Tideflat (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, sorry, you appear to be correct. I was thinking of it as constant acceleration rather than no acceleration, but that's not quite right. So then, how about Newton's laws of motion#Newton's first law? It has plenty of explanation, only one equation, uses the phrase "uniform motion" three times, and is about the correct subject (namely, motion with no acceleration). 786b6364 (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That may work, and could be better than the stub I wrote, but the closest it ever come to defining uniform motion is "Thus, a condition necessary for the uniform motion of a particle relative to an inertial reference frame is that the total net force acting on it is zero.". Tideflat (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, what if we change it to more explicitly state that it's talking about uniform motion? For instance, changing the bullet point under the equation to something like: "An object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an unbalanced force acts upon it. This is known as uniform motion." 786b6364 (talk) 17:10, 2 June 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.

Vito Palazzolo[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. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vito Palazzolo is not the same person as Vito Roberto Palazzolo and the latter is certainly not the person that is convicted of the murder of Giuseppe Impastato, which is the current redirect. This is a serious mistake involving WP:BLP. DonCalo (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created the page because a news source about him just used the name "Vito Palazzolo" throughout and when I typed in http://enwp.org/Vito_Palazzolo I saw that there was nothing. (I don't usually use the Search box.) Many other sources seem to just call him Vito Palazzolo as well. If it's going to cause confusion I have no objection to deleting the redirect but I think there should be a way to indicate that there are two people with this name. For now, Ive removed the link on Giuseppe Impastato and left the redirect in place. ☮Soap☮ 19:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a second Vito Palazzolo that is notable enough for an article on him, then converting the redirect to a disambiguation is a definite option. If the current target is the only person with this name that is notable enough for an article, then the current redirect is proper, no matter how many non-notable people in the world have the same name. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vito Roberto Palazzolo and Vito Palazzolo are two different persons although they are both members of the Mafia. However, they are sometimes confused, and a murder committed by one is attributed to the other. In this case it seems that separating the two is paramount. Since Vito Palazzolo is not as notable to deserve an article, the best option is to delete Vito Palazzolo to avoid confusion, imho. - DonCalo (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As TexasAndroid notes, it does not matter how many non-notable "Vito Palazzolo"s there are in the world. If they are non-notable, then they have no impact on the encyclopedia. We disambiguate to help readers sort between existing encyclopedia articles so they can find the content they need. If there is no alternate content on a topic, then there is nothing to disambiguate. And omission of a middle name is an entire plausible reason to create a redirect.
    By way of comparison, whitepages.com reports that there are 36 people with the name "Charles Manson". Based on the reported location, none of them are the Charles Manson. There are also a number of people named "Charles Mansen". Being non-notable, none of them have any impact on the lack of disambiguation of either the Charles Manson article or the Charles Mansen redirect. WP:BLP does not apply. Rossami (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TexasAndroid and Rossami, and add a hatnote for Giuseppe Impastato to Vito Roberto Palazzolo. The latter is I think quite clearly the primary topic, but a reader could also conceivably looking for the guy convicted of murder. – hysteria18 (talk) 03:40, 12 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.

User:Zad68/MJ history sources[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 delete. BencherliteTalk 17:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed my own user page, unneeded Zad68 (talk) 17:22, 10 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.

Operation Fobos-Gone[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 Delete, G3 by User:Boing!_said_Zebedee. Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Include:

These redirects were created by Starkiller88 (talk · contribs) as part of a series of seemingly disruptive edits to suggest the activist group Anonymous intended to target Russian organisations linked with the failed Fobos-Grunt space mission. Whenever adding the claim to Anonymous (group) or Fobos-Grunt it has always been either completely unsourced, or supported only by self-published, allegedly primary, sources, whose veracity cannot be established. Secondary or tertiary coverage, or any coverage by reliable sources, is non-existent, so these redirects are in all probability a hoax. W. D. Graham 15:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are not disruptive. A Twitter account for Operation Phobos-Gone has been established. I'm certain that it will happen as this operation may do some vigilante actions on "those responsible" for the space mission failures, such as Fobos-Grunt recently. I think it will be different than any operation Anonymous have done in the past. So different that they will not get into trouble with any law enforcement agencies in any way. I also think Anonymous will do what the Russian president Dmitry Medvedev had suggested in November 2011 following the launch fiasco of the Mars moon probe – punishing and criminally prosecuting those responsible space officials. Probe's main contractor NPO Lavochkin's officials were punished for not taking any form of cosmic radiation while designing computer systems. These punishments aren't enough, because a few days later, an official failure report saying a "programming error" which caused a simultaneous reboot of the computer's main system. This is perhaps a cumulation of being underfunded, lack of testing, lack of quality control and corruption. I feel Anonymous' vigilante acts based on these might help. Their plan is to need everyone dedicated to the Phobos-Grunt mission, to act and make sure that this failure will not happen again and how ridiculous it was for the Russian organizations to "deprove themselves". The goal is to make the organizations take notice of these failures and to force them to take notice and to prevent them. The more we focused on them in a way that doesn't get them into trouble, the harder it will be for them to ignore the issue. On a side note, emailing the Russian Federal Space Agency would be next to useless as they have made up their minds upon reaching an agreement for the European Space Agency ExoMars program's inclusion, thus postponing any future sample return mission to Phobos. Or, defacing or DoSing any website of Russian organizations linking to the Fobos mission would be very useless and risky. The operation encourage its participants to focus their energy on the matter instead. This should be left out as they might happen sometime soon. Starkiller88 (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a) Since when has Twitter been a reliable source, b) this is not notable or significant because nothing has come of it, and there is no coverage of it in the media or other reliable sources, c) most of your argument to keep this seems to be based on your opinion that such a campaign "might help", which is not a valid reason not to delete something and d) we can always restore them if something ever actually comes of it, or if you can provide proof that this is not just some hoax which you, or somebody else, has just made up. Out of interest, how did you actually come across the pastebin links; it's strange that anyone would be able to find them without knowing what to look for. --W. D. Graham 18:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's one thing is certain. Operation Phobos-Gone by Anonymous has started because of BatteryIncluded's statements that Fobos-Grunt will not be repeated in any name or form. As of right now, the Fobos-Grunt team has been disbanded. This operation aims to prosecute them so that it will make sure that this fiasco will not happen again. Starkiller88 (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it's something you've created in response to his editing? --W. D. Graham 18:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's WHAT BatteryIncluded said on my talk page last month: Fobos-Grunt FAILED, BURNED, CRASHED (NOT RECOVERED) AND THE MISSION WILL NOT BE REPEATED IN ANY FASHION OR NAME (EVER). It is Op_PhobosGone and it's on Twitter right now. It is not a hoax. It is real. And the campaign to declare war on "those responsible for this failure" and make sure that this will not happen, as stated on the description of the page. Starkiller88 (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Starkiller88 is a single-purpose user obsessed with the failure/repeat of the Russian spacecraft Phobos-Grunt. His months-long disruptions escalated now to acussation of me being part of Anonymous hackers waging war against he. He is obviously a paranoid person with whom it is not worth trying to explain the 5 Pilars of Wikipedia. Now, if I may, I will return to my private space station, stroke my cat and relish on the destruction reaped by my minions at Anonymopus. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I got it. I'm not a paranoid person. I started Anonymous "Operation Fobos-Gone" (@Op_PhobosGone) on Twitter and (on paper.li) because of the fact that Fobos-Grunt FAILED, BURNED, CRASHED (NOT RECOVERED) AND THE MISSION WILL NOT BE REPEATED IN ANY FASHION OR NAME (EVER), and I am a member of The Planetary Society distraught over the loss of Phobos LIFE, which may led to LIFE being abandoned and the team behind it disbanded. The project website of Fobos-Grunt is still online despite after these events, and it is likely to exist forever as it is a junk of IKI's web servers. Starkiller88 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I'm changing my !vote to Speedy Delete under G3 as pure vandalism. --W. D. Graham 12:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not vandalism. Check it out on @Op_PhobosGone twitter page, and the recently established Operation Fobos-Gone Daily which reports Anonymous group's upcoming vigilante actions on those responsible for the Phobos-Grunt launch fiasco as Dmitry Medvedev suggested. Anyway, leave it out until actually happens. Starkiller88 (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too vote for a speedy delete and even banning user Starkiller88 under WP:vandalism, WP:soapbox and persistent introduction of false material (e.g. cheap websites he creates to "support" his paranoid campaign).BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Throw WP:SOCK in there as well, because he was quite clearly behind the raft of IP edits that resulted in the page's protection. Unfortunately I can't prove his intentions, but I suspect he was using the IPs to try and keep his main account under the radar (which has already been blocked for disruption four times (albeit a few years ago, but he hasn't taken the hint); three times for OR, and once for talk page disruption similar to his responses when we tried to explain why we didn't need to include website status reports in the article). I guess this is something which would need to be continued at WP:ANI though, and for that matter all four redirects have now been speedied, so the deletion discussion should probably be closed. --W. D. Graham 19:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete for obvious reasons (covered by WDGraham and BatteryIncluded). --V2Blast (talk) 18:58, 14 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.

Canis Cadem Edit[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been created as a redirect to Bully (video game). The edit summary says that Canis Cadem Edit is the european name of the game, whereas it is actually Canis Canem Edit. A redirect page with this name exists. This is obviously a typo, and a quick search on our favourite search engine will deliver nothing but results with the right spelling. This is why I think this page should be deleted. Maimai009 15:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A google search for the exact phrase "Canis Cadem Edit returns "About 20,700 results" [1] including www.slicedgaming.com and the redirect page got viewed 80 times in 2012-03 [2]. Tideflat (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It strikes me as a plausible typo. Even after reading the correct title multiple times, my mental voice keeps "pronouncing" it 'canem' - I suspect because of the mental priming of the old latin phrase cave canem (beware of dog). Rossami (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Uh... "Canem" is the right word. "Cadem" is wrong. --V2Blast (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did get that turned around, didn't I. Sorry. Tideflat's statistics are still compelling, though. Rossami (talk)
  • Keep - it's apparently a decently common typo. --V2Blast (talk) 19:00, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_10&oldid=1140103538"