Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 26, 2014.

HPME[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) 16:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short for "honours Programme in Medical Education". Not unique to this school. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 26 August 2014 (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.

Honors Program in Medical Education[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) 16:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not unique to this school. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 26 August 2014 (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:P[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. This may well come up again, and consensus can change, but right now it supports keeping this redirect as is. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata uses two concepts repeatedly, P and Q. Template:Q makes a link to Wikidata items. Template:P currently redirects to Template:Smiley, but could go to Wikidata properties. Since the concept of P is so fundamental to Wikidata, and since the current P redirect to smiley is only used about 1500 times, I propose to take over Template:P for Wikidata. Any objections? See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:P for usage. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I see that you tried to propose this a month ago at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_22#Template:P. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This template is explicitly intended to be substituted, which is why "only" 1500 uses can be found. (Fifteen hundred!) It is also intended to be incredibly short and easy to introduce, because we should be smiling frequently . And when you type it out, it makes a little smiley face at you with the tongue sticking out. Unless I am horribly misunderstanding the proposal, there exists no reason whatsoever to recreate the Wikidata template at Template:P; it could be recreated with any title, such as {{WDP}}. I'm also not sure why the nominator thinks that Wikidata's decision to use Template:P means that a template used thousands upon thousands of times on Wikipedia must be moved. Red Slash 22:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC
  • delete this location, it's far to vague a name; Wikidatea can use {{WDP}} and {{WDQ}} per above; rename the smiley, it could use a form that includes the nose {{-P}} instead -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as is per Red Slash. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 07:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not Wikidata, and there is no reason given why they need to have the same template names. {{P}} is obviously very widely used on en.wp for its current purpose if there are over a thousand transclusions of a template that is supposed to be substituted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, Red Slash, Technical 13: I am just checking for options and do not know what is best. As I said, Wikidata has two major and fundamental functions, one called Q and the other P. I expect that in the future, it would be most natural for every Wikimedia project which uses Latin characters to have some template for each of these, as Wikidata is inherently multilingual and facilitates the exchange of information across Wikimedia projects. "Wikipedia is not Wikidata", as is said, but Wikidata is Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, and everything else in every language, and it would be natural to have the same templates used as many Wikimedia projects as possible. The most natural and obvious names for these templates would be P and Q, with the P template looking a lot like Template:Q.
I am not going to force this issue but if there is not some plan for reconciliation, then it would not surprise me if this issue were raised again in the future. I doubt that I will be the last person to imagine that the P template is the most desirable place from which to call Wikidata's P function. Any longer template name would be more difficult to translate into every language and make as universal as possible on many wikis, and inter-wiki connections do seem to be a trend for the future.
I do not want to upset or disturb existing practices. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting more complicated, but I just learned after asking around that information in Wikidata is being deployed into English Wikipedia. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Wikidata_project_to_associate_drugs_with_interactions, where it is discussed that Wikidata information is being tested in medical templates to automatically give links to government websites. There will be more experiments like this in the future. Right now, because of a lack of consensus on P templates, I am not sure how this would be discussed on any given Wikimedia project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we need to discuss Wikidata properties on Wikipedia? Surely the place to discuss them is on Wikidata? If we do though, they can easily be discussed by using a different template. The only issue here is that repurposing a redirect has to be done carefully so you don't break things without a very good reason - the bigger the potential breakage the better the reason needs to be. The potential for breaking things here is very high as it is a widely used, substituted template, but I don't see enough benefit here to justify that disruption. Instead of trying to piecemeal change existing redirects on each individual wiki what you should be doing is getting T6547 ("Support crosswiki template inclusion (transclusion => interwiki templates, etc.") worked on. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikidata achieves its aims then it will export a lot of information to all Wikipedias, and perhaps most information to some Wikipedias. This is why I think there should be an easy option to link to Wikidata properties so that they can be discussed here, as they currently can be for Wikidata items. In initial experiments Wikidata is only manipulating the data in infoboxes. In the example I gave one can see that, as one case, the infobox for Kidney cancer is presenting a value (the NCI link) which is nowhere on the page, but is in the infobox template. This development follows problems in maintaining these links which have been the focus of a lot of discussion since at least 2008. Links are just the beginning, so it is premature to start taking highly used templates like this smiley P now.
I do not expect that Bugzilla item to be addressed anytime soon, especially since Wikidata takes a lot of urgency out of the original request by allowing any Wikimedia project to call information from Wikidata. Wikidata also provides a centralized place for discussing information, and otherwise, information from interwiki links might be discussed anywhere redundantly. I am not sure about how Wikidata changes community need for interwiki links - I could be wrong, and am still thinking about this, but my initial thought is that this Bugzilla item has nothing to do with Wikidata's apparent need for the P template.
There is no urgency to change the smiley template to suit Wikidata. If it is really critical someone will ask again later. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And this is, already the second time of asking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Why would we need to discuss Wikidata properties on Wikipedia?" - in the same way that we need to discuss Commons categories and files. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, very actively used redirect, and I don't see a significant benefit to repurposing it. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2014 (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.

Geno whirl[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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This special move of a Super Mario RPG character isn't mentioned at the target article, and likely never will be per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Compare to Thunderbolt Pokémon Attack. BDD (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per BDD. (I have nothing to add.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirect title not mentioned in article, unlikely to ever be useful. Used less than once a day prior to listing. No history to preserve. czar ♔ 00:12, 28 September 2014 (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.

Rameshwar 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No source mention Rameshwar Wadi as "Rameshwar City" the article itself mention it as a small village hence this redirect is a obvious madeup by the author. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:32, 26 August 2014 (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.

Control (album)[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. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a deletion nomination. This redirect is for improvements. Because removing "Janet Jackson" from the title is impossible, I propose that this be retargeted to Control (Janet Jackson album) for primary use. Neither Control (Pedro the Lion album) nor Control (GoodBooks album) surpasses historical significance and popularity of the Janet Jackson album. I don't think I really need to provide viewing stats because numbers may be obvious. There is no other album of similar name right now, and there isn't Control by current generation of singers right now. George Ho (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2014 (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.

Speedball (American)[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 Speedball as clearly the appropriate action to avoid an incorrect disambiguation. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to disambiguation page Speedball. ;; Speedball (boxing) is a type of punching bag, also used in the United States, while it is more commonly called a "speedbag", it is also called a "speedball", so "American" is a bad disambiguator. 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good catch, I should have noticed this when closing the RM. Retarget per nom. Jenks24 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2014 (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.

You're Dead![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 disambiguation page at You're Dead. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a deletion request, but a retarget discussion. From You're Dead! to You're Dead. The situation is or we restore You're Dead! (album) to "You're Dead!" or we retarget it to the disambiguation page You're Dead. Per WP:DIFFPUNCT there is no problem with the firstoption, but if it is incorrect, it has no sense to redirect "You're Dead!" to the album if it is "no primary" as stated by the mover/targeter. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC) © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean towards keeping as is. Under normal circumstances a non primary redirect should go to the dab, that's true. A handful of RM outcome exceptions like Thriller (album) going to 1 of several albums is odd. However when there's a WP:DIFFPUNCT type difference of a hyphen, apostrophe, exclamation or question mark then that's slightly different. In this case while Google sources for the You're Dead (album)/You're Dead! (album) are few poor and mixed (not surprisingly since it hasn't even been released yet) and "You're Dead!" is a common exclamation. The film, books and other songs don't seem to have ! ...but then search engines can't distinguish ! ? which is one of the reasons for not relying on them. Not greatly fussed either way but lean to keeping as is, for the time being. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi plenty of RS for the album available now, if you're interested czar ♔ 00:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Czar how can we check that "Jack, You're Dead!" by B.B. King is the only song/story/episode to have ever used a ! with "You're Dead" before this upcoming album? Conducting searches with "!" is extremely problematic. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and how can we be sure about anything? We do a few searches and do the best we can. In the first dozen page of hits, no other title appears to use exclamation points so as to conflict. Of course there will eventually be another You're Dead! in the future but until that time, there is no other topic competing to be the "You're Dead!" primary topic. czar ♔ 01:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we agree that seeing as we technically can't search for or against then we have little idea whether the exclamation mark ! has been used with "You're dead!" before. Note that the B.B. King song is sometimes with "!" sometimes without. Well, if you truly believe that removing (album) will (a) help readers who want to find the upcoming October 2014 album find it, and (b) help readers who don't want the October 2014 album to avoid the album, then you're welcome to use uncontroversial technical moves at WP:RM to remove (album), I won't object. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2014 (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/2014_August_26&oldid=1138579432"