Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 2, 2013

Mini moo[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. Tikiwont (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing that there is a character or something in the Wizard of Oz by this name, but currently it is a disambig redirect. So far as I can tell, there are multiple meanings unrelated to The Wizard of Oz. Most likely, it should be a separate disambig page; otherwise, it should redirect to whatever Wizard of Oz media was the first to feature this character. bd2412 T 20:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete. From the original version [1] appears to be have been some madeup junk which happened to mention "oz". Siuenti (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's nothing relating this to Wizard of Oz that I know of or can find and I just read the book a couple of weeks ago. There are some uses of the phrase in Wikipedia, but none would be the target of a redirect unless the Mini Moo Moo show referenced at Cartoon Network (Japan) gets an article. SchreiberBike (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2013 (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.

Other people's money[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, that is put the history under User:Xerographica/Other people's money, and move the disambiguation page here. Tikiwont (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other people's money the title was redirected to Milton Friedman. The latter article does not mention the phrase or give a clear idea of what it means. (Per discussion at AfD, it's unclear whether Friedman used the phrase in this form, but he has expressed an opinion that government spending tends to be wasteful, since government money comes from other people.) Full disclosure: I participated in the AfD and argued to delete the article. Cnilep (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If there already was an article that covers the concept that the government does not carefully spend taxpayers' money...then I wouldn't have created the article. Maybe the most relevant redirect would be to government failure. --Xerographica (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect or Delete The "government failure" page is not appropriate because it's for the economic concept as distinct from its use in the article you created. Government waste (which I'm guessing you know of since you created that article as well) would be the appropriate redirect. If you think the phrase "other peoples' money" needs a separate article, can you explain how the concept is distinct from that described in "Government waste"? —Fishicus (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Let's expand our scope a bit...
Another word for "preference" is "demand" as in "supply and demand". Conceit results in economic non sequiturs. There's a disconnect between the premise (demand/preferences) and the conclusion (supply). When it comes to economics...you and I and everybody else...WE, THE PEOPLE...are the premise. There can only be massive disconnects between the supply (how society's limited resources are used) and the demand (our true preferences) when we do not have the freedom to express our true preferences.
The joy of being a kid in a candy store is only possible because millions and millions of other kids had the freedom to choose the candies that match their preferences. Life, for each and every person, should be exactly like being a kid in a candy store. But for that to happen, it's absolutely essential for people to have the freedom to indicate which products/goods/services/ideas/people match their true preferences. This is how we ensure that society's limited resources are used to produce the maximize benefit/value for society as a whole.
Well...that's the theory at least. Clearly it matches my preferences for there to be an article dedicated to Friedman's and Waldfogel's overlapping arguments. But redirecting other people's money to consumer sovereignty would work for now. --Xerographica (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, my intention above was not to dispute any of the concepts you've expressed within this or other articles. However, I don't see a reason to justify two separate articles that explain very similar concepts, especially given how very short most of the articles you listed are (a large number of them are hardly stubs, consisting of between one and four sentences). I'm not sure in your response that you actually provided an explanation; from what I can tell, you've just discussed additional concepts/articles.
I think these articles meet nearly all of Wikipedia's reasons for merging articles: the concepts have a high degree of overlap, the articles are very short, and bringing them together would likely help readers more than keeping them separate by providing useful context. The majority of those articles discuss highly overlapping aspects all related to "government failure", with only slight differences between them. Many of them should, I think, be merged within the Government waste article as separate sections. The Market failure article is a perfect example of this.
I got a bit sidetracked there...but specifically regarding "Other peoples' money" and "Government waste", the latter even states in the "Causes" section, "Some people believe one of the main causes of government waste is that the government is spending other people's money". At the point where one concept is being used as the cause of another concept, I think that's reason enough to merge them. —Fishicus (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Topic A either is, or it isn't, sufficiently relevant to be discussed within Topic B. But just because you can discuss "consumer sovereignty" within "government waste" does not mean that "consumer sovereignty" suddenly lacks the required notability to warrant its own entry. If a topic is notable enough to warrant it's own entry...then it should have its own entry. In other words, and obviously, a topic having its own entry does not prevent it from having its own section within any number of sufficiently related topics.
Of course you're more than welcome to suggest mergers on any of the concepts I listed. It's doubtful you'll get much of a response though. The merger proposal between foot voting and Tiebout model generated barely any discussion. There just aren't enough active economic editors on Wikipedia to generate a credible consensus with regards to economic concepts. That's why it's all about stubs. I'm copying and pasting the following paragraph because it's relevant to excessive merging...
If you give stubs an improvement deadline...then you're kind of missing the point of stubs. The demonstrated preference concept (as in actions speak louder than words)...is sufficiently notable to warrant its own entry. But that doesn't mean that as soon as the entry is created...you give those who have the knowledge...or interest...a week to find it and improve it...or else. I certainly have the knowledge and interest to improve it...but right now my priority is trying to improve the tax choice entry. Who knows though whether tomorrow, or a month from now, or a year from now...an expert is going to stumble upon the entry and contribute to it. But they can't contribute to something that doesn't exist. So if you take away this entry then you're simply taking away people's contribution options. The point of Wikipedia is to capture dispersed knowledge and that requires casting a wide net and waiting...because well, knowledge is dispersed. --Xerographica (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I need to clarify what I meant. I didn't mean just because one can be included in the other it should. But in what concepts aside from "government waste" is "other peoples' money" relevant? Again, I don't think you've provided any reason for it to have a separate page (only arguments against deletion, but that's not the same as for remaining). Also, not sure what you mean in regard to "actions speak louder than words"; that page doesn't seem to exist. —Fishicus (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I moved "other people's money" over to my subpage...User:Xerographica/Other people's money. The additional reading section establishes the notability of the concept. If you'd like to continue this discussion then you're more than welcome to post on my subpage's talk page. --Xerographica (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no evidence Friedman used the term, let alone in a notable way or with the meaning that was promoted by the deleted article. SPECIFICO talk 04:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The redirect seems have been created as a compromise to a deletion discussion (the actual consensus of which was to delete), but was a poor idea based on an even more poorly created article. – S. Rich (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to be covered somewhere A significant term and a significant concept. Needs to be covered somewhere, and needs a better home than Friedman. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a link to Milton Friedman to Other people's money (disambiguation) and move that to this title. If there is a potential article here (I don't know), it's doesn't get primary usage while it doesn't exist, and Milton Friedman isn't the primary use of the phrase either. The dab page shows that this is a highly likely search term so this should not be a redlink. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, consensus on the AfD was for deletion, not a redirect. It needs to go. GregJackP Boomer! 17:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If there is no primary topic for this term, then the disambiguation page should be moved to this title. bd2412 T 20:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete and move dab page here. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move dab page to title. Barring some direct evidence that any reader would be thinking of Milton Friedman when entering the phrase into the search box -- and I've seen no evidence of that -- then it's not only pointless but actively confusing. --Calton | Talk 12:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Thryduulf said—move/dabify. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2013 (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/2013_February_2&oldid=1138578851"