Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 16, 2014.

Autism Research Institute[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 30#Autism Research Institute

Protesters (disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 29#Protesters (disambiguation)

David Brownschidle[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) 16:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly absurd redirect. Subject is NN one-time college hockey player whose connection to the parent article is that (along with several dozen other players) he scored a point in said tournament. Redirect created by now-indeffed editor with a long history of ignoring notability standards, and creating NN articles and implausible redirects. Ravenswing 15:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not an appropriate redirect per above. Better served by being a red link. -DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Inappropriate redirect. Only purpose, given the creating editor's history was to tag the first edit in the event the player did gain notability. Resolute 19:46, 17 December 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.

Ivan Kaustin[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. No evidence that this is a common misspelling. Redirect created by now-indeffed editor with a long history of creating implausible redirects. Ravenswing 15:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It transposes two letters in a way that makes the name more pronounceable, at least to my ear. I don't see anything wrong with it. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure on this one...probably leaning towards what BDD mentions. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. To my ear too "Kaustin" is an easier pronunciation and more expected spelling than "Kasutin". Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 17 December 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.

Bryan Brutlag[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) 16:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. Subject played a single season of low-minor league hockey, with no obvious connection with the parent article. Not mentioned at all in parent article. Redirect created by now-indeffed editor with a long history of creating NN articles and implausible redirects. Ravenswing 15:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a good redirect per above. Better served as a red link. -DJSasso (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Inappropriate redirect, no strong relationship to targeted article. Only purpose, given the creating editor's history was to tag the first edit in the event the player did gain notability. Resolute 19:46, 17 December 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.

Job system[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 Character class. I, JethroBT drop me a line 13:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is rather ambiguous. It may be able to be converted to a disambiguation page that lists different types if job systems, such as employment systems in company, etc. However, I'm not sure where to start with that task. Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, my change to the dab page was reverted. Retarget to Character class with an other-uses hatnote. All of the incoming links (there aren't many) are video game related. Ivanvector (talk) 23:40, 16 December 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.

Lightning in a tropical cyclone[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. See further comments below. Nyttend (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning isn't mentioned at all on the target article. This used to be an article itself, but it was quite minimal and of dubious notability. I recommend deletion, but I wouldn't object to restoring the article and perhaps letting it go to AfD. I do object to the status quo. (Pinging Cyclonebiskit, who redirected the article and seems to be a very active editor on the topic.) BDD (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • cyclones are mentioned on the Lightning page, but only in a definition. That does link to Mesocyclone which talks about thunderstorms in the lead and includes a picture with lightning. I'm no subject expert so can't comment on whether Mesocyclones are at all related to tropical cyclones though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tropical cyclones are cyclones (of course) but according to our articles and some Googling, mesocyclones are distinct from tropical cyclones (I'm also no expert in this). There is some indication that the rarity of lightning in the core of a tropical cyclone (versus other cyclonic storms) is noteworthy, so there probably should be something in the tropical cyclone article that mentions it, and if there was then this redirect would be appropriate. However, we should wait to hear from someone with more knowledge of meteorology. Ivanvector (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As long as lightning is not mentioned on tropical cyclone, then the redirect is inappropriate, in my opinion. While lightning is rare in the inner core of a tropical cyclone, it does exist, and it is more prevalent in the outer bands of tropical cyclones. And just to confirm what Thryduulf said, mesocyclones are distinct from tropical cyclones. Personally, I do not think the tropical cyclone page needs to talk about the rarity of lightning, because it fluctuates from storm to storm and strikes me (no pun intended) as something more trivial than noteworthy. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was Ivanvector rather than me who noted the distinction, but thanks for the comment. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My expertise in meteorology isn't tropical weather, but, to my knowledge, there isn't anything really special about "Lightning in a tropical cyclone", so the redirect in question here (if it should even exist in the first place, since there really aren't any articles that are linking to it right now) should be redirected to Lightning. Note: A mesocyclone is not the same thing at all as a tropical cyclone. Guy1890 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Guy1890. If I'm understanding correctly, there is nothing at all unique about lightning that occurs in a tropical cyclone, so redirecting to our article on lightning is the most appropriate action. Ivanvector (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy1890 and Ivanvector, the only mention of a cyclone at Lightning is a link to mesocyclone. Will retargeting there do anything but disappoint a reader using this as a search term? --BDD (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that should be updated to say something like: "...near the mesocyclone of rotating thunderstorms and rarely in the outer rain bands of tropical cyclones, and coincides..." - assuming that the mechanism (lightning resulting from intensification of updrafts) is the same in both types of storm. As far as I can tell it is, but that's really a question for the experts. Ivanvector (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A thunderstorm isn't thunderstorm without any lightning. In other words, there's no such thing as a thunderstorm that occurs without any lightning. A cyclone is really just a another way of saying the word "storm". There are different scales of storms though. Smaller-scale storms (usually within an individual & well-developed thunderstorm - one that is rotating at a decent speed) are called mesocyclones. Not all thunderstorms really rotate in nature, but many do. The "meso" in the word mesocyclone can refer to scales of motion as small as within one thunderstorm to as large as much larger groups of many thunderstorms. The storm that caused rain or snow recently where you live can also be a type of cyclone, like a winter storm. Tropical cyclones cover a range of larger-scale storms that occur almost exclusively in the tropics, like tropical storms, hurricanes, etc.. Within these types of larger-scale storms are obviously individual or groups of thunderstorms, many of which can rotate violently, causing various types of severe weather.
The lightning Wikipedia page has been in need of updating for a while now - it's my long list of things to do, but I unfortunately haven't gotten around to do much work on it recently. Wikipedia probably disappoints a lot of readers when it comes to scientific information. This is just my personal opinion as a meteorologist, but a lot of the theories around lightning don't have a huge amount of solid research behind them. Guy1890 (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So my proposed edit would not help, then, and probably that section needs to be rewritten by someone who knows what they're talking about. So as far as we understand it, there isn't any difference between lightning generally and lightning in a tropical cyclone, except that the latter happens to occur in a tropical cyclone, yes? In that case, a user searching for "lightning in a tropical cyclone" is going to find the information they're looking for at lightning, whether they expect it or not. It's outside my expertise to rewrite the article appropriately. Ivanvector (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"there isn't any difference between lightning generally and lightning in a tropical cyclone, except that the latter happens to occur in a tropical cyclone, yes?" As far as I know (and again I'm not an expert in tropical meteorology), no - there really isn't much of a difference there. There might be some research into the polarity (negative vs. positive - I think it's safe to say that most lightning recorded by cloud-to-ground lightning detection networks is negative) & the distribution of lightning in a tropical system though. I still think that the redirect here should be to our lightning article. Guy1890 (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks, Ivan, I see where you're coming from here. But from what I gather, the idea was never that lightning behaves differently in a tropical cyclone, but that it's very rare for such lightning to show up. And I think a reader using this search term is more likely asking about the specific occurrence of lightning in a tropical cyclone rather than the general properties of lightning. Certainly anyone who tried the search term and didn't get results could go to Lightning, either in the search results or as a matter of common sense. --BDD (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since a topic as specific as the title of this redirect is not mentioned at its target, and I am not able to find an article which has a topic that meets this criteria. Steel1943 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comments. People obviously weren't fond of retaining it without changes, but the consensus isn't clear at all beyond that. Although I'm technically closing this as "not doing anything" because of the no consensus, I'm going to restore it as a separate article and send it to AFD while wearing my normal-editor hat. That way, we can easily consider whether we want to retain the history; it will work as a relisting to get more input, and hopefully people will be able to decide whether it's best to retain it as an article, to redirect it somewhere (and specifically, the exact target), or to trash it entirely. Please come to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightning in a tropical cyclone and offer input. Nyttend (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2015 (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.

民主進歩党[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, defaulting to keep for now. There are competing arguments here with regard whether this is a plausible search term or not that I could not resolve based on this discussion. As a side note, [1] probably would have been useful in this discussion to guide decisions. I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese shinjitai isn't relevant. - TheChampionMan1234 22:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@John123521: No, because Chinese speakers type using an input method editor and they are more likely to make typos like 民主金怒當, if they press the wrong pinyin key. --- TheChampionMan1234 09:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's for the pronounciation-based IMEs. There are also a sizable population that uses shape-based IMEs like the Cangjie input method, which gives different sets of possible typos. Again, 歩 qualifies here (same Cangjie code 卜中一竹), but 党 is still too far-fetched. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 11:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see where Thryduulf is coming from, but I just don't feel comfortable with typos in foreign-language redirects. In many cases, it's going to be very difficult to tell what something is a typo for, and a typo in one language may actually mean something in another language. This is also a problem with foreign-language redirects generally. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean with "typo"? This is how the party's name usually is written in Japanese. I'm not sure that it is useful to have Japanese-language redirects for Taiwanese political parties. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per BDD, typo redirects in a foreign language is far fetched - Nabla (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Oh! Probably not a typo, but a redirect to an entity from a language (Japanese) which is foreign both to the entity and to the English language WP. I'm also sure we do not need redirects from every language (though we'd appreciate interwikis to every language :-), so, still _delete_ - Nabla (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. We don't need foreign language typos of this nature. Tavix |  Talk  03:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. If they are used on an official website, then they are a reasonable search term and the redirect should be left. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not implausible to that a user would copy 民主進步黨 from the party logo and search for it. The fact that the redirect is most likely to assist those who lack familiarity with Chinese is actually an argument in its favor, as these users are less likely to find the article without such assistance. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This redirect uses 歩 and 党, not 步 and 黨. I agree that there should be a redirect from 民主進步黨 as that is the "spelling" used in the country of the party. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the English Wikipedia is not a Japanese-to-Chinese translation service. Steel1943 (talk) 03:56, 31 December 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.

Stanisław Skarżyński[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) 16:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 15:26, 16 December 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.

Chuckie Finch[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 29#Chuckie Finch

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_16&oldid=1138579469"