Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 26[edit]

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

Docker[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) 14:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target the Docker redirect to go to Docker (software) instead of Stevedore I believe it is highly likely that someone searching for the term Docker is looking for Docker (software) rather than Stevedore HappyCamp23 (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is certain is that there are ~42 links to "Docker" (most intended for the dockworker) which would be broken by such a change. Would the nominator care to fix those links? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I will take care of converting Docker links to Stevedore links HappyCamp23 (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That seems decidedly premature to me. First establish consensus, then implement the change, not the other way around. Huon (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I thought I was asked to fix the links. The changes I have made would seem to be acceptable, as they changed the links that pointed to a 'redirection' page to the actual article page. I didn't change the wording in the articles. I will admit that I am unfamiliar with the bureaucracy and protocols for making changes. HappyCamp23 (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, a quick Google Books search for "docker" and "ships" gives 6,350 results, while one for "docker" and "software only gives 989 results. I'd consider 6-1 odds in favor of the "stevedore" meaning convincing evidence for the primary topic. This isn't even taking into account that "dockers" and "ships" gives still more results. Google Scholar results are more ambiguous since there are numerous false positives due to an oft-cited author on software topics named "Thomas WG Docker", but it's still clear that the stevedores dominate the field. Huon (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move, a quick examination of page views over the last 30 days shows approximately a 3-1 ratio for Docker_(software) compared to Stevedore. http://stats.grok.se/en/latest30/Stevedore http://stats.grok.se/en/latest30/Docker_%28software%29 And Stevedore obviously gets additional page views from people searching for Docker the software and landing on the Stevedore page. Also doing a standard Google and Bing searches the first page results are almost entirely for Docker_(software) I strongly disagree that Stevedore is the primary topic as it says, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Maybe Docker should redirect to the disambiguation page, but it most certainly should not have Stevedore as the primary topic. HappyCamp23 (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this is an additional !voting statement by the nominator, who also submitted a related requested move at Talk:Docker. Certainly a move of Docker (disambiguation) → Docker would be a less radical step, and perhaps represents a good compromise. This could always be revisited if and when this software becomes as famous as Windows. – Wbm1058 (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I support changing it to redirect to a disambiguation page. Do I need to resubmit this proposal or can this one be used? HappyCamp23 (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Archaic uses of a word should not be the primary reference in Wikipedia. In searches on Google and Bing, the first five pages carry links overwhelmingly referring to the software. That said, I don't think a redirect to the software is in order. But when a Search for Docker is done on Wikipedia, the only sensible landing is the Disambig page as there are a number of uses of the word. This is effectively how dictionaries handle it. Bsouthwell (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The use of 'docker' to mean 'a labourer in the docks' is certainly not archaic in the UK. There aren't nearly as many dockers as there once were, but they're still known as dockers, not stevedores or longshoremen (in fact I had no idea what a longshoreman was before yesterday — I would have guessed a type of inshore fisherman). Qwfp (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree. It's most certainly not archaic in the UK. It's the common term for someone who loads and unloads ships. "Longshoreman" is not used in the UK and a stevedore over here is usually not an ordinary docker, but a highly skilled man who leads a gang of dockers (although the definition varies from port to port). A clear case of WP:ENGVAR and of an "I don't use the term so it must be archaic" attitude. Also, looking at the software logo, I think we can assume that the people who wrote it did know what a docker was! -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the understanding of the word in the UK, should control, is what you mean? Five times more people have never heard of the UK meaning of the word, not even considering the rest of the world's English-speakers. So is this a democracy? Or do the loudest shouters win? Personally, that's enough of this puerile discussion for me. This is a question of the quality of this site as a reference. If you like, go ahead and don't follow world standards established by dictionaries and hardcopy encyclopedias for centuries, and make it look like there's only one meaning for docker. Your choice. Bsouthwell (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you probably need to reread what the proposal above actually is. It's to redirect docker to a piece of software that most people have probably never heard of instead of to the standard meaning of word understood by many millions of people! And you reckon we're the ones who are anti-democratic?! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose re-targetting, favour conversion to a disambiguation page. The software may be the primary topic with respect to current usage, but usage is but one of the two major aspects discussed by the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline, the other being long-term significance. The initial release of the software package was in March 2013 so it cannot possibly demonstrate enduring notability as yet, while the Oxford English Dictionary gives quotations of 'docker' meaning 'a labourer in the docks' from the 1880s, so 'Stevedore' is clearly currently the primary topic with respect to long-term significance. As there is currently there is a conflict between the topic of primary usage and the one of primary long-term significance and the discussion here demonstrates a lack of consensus, the term should be a disambiguation page. Qwfp (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I support changing it to redirect to a disambiguation page. Do I need to resubmit this proposal or can this one be used? HappyCamp23 (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - a docker is a docker, if someone wants to make a dab page at Docker (disambiguation) go ahead, but a docker is like a thatcher or plumber, there's no competing other meaning. User:HappyCamp23 you appear to have few other edits at Wikipedia other than promoting this software product. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Google and Bing searches would strongly disagree about the statement "there's no competing other meaning". It took me until around page 7 in a Google search to find anything remotely related to a Stevedore when searching for the term "Docker". But if you agree that Docker should redirect to a disambiguation page that works for me. Still unsure if I need to make a new proposal to have it go to a disambiguation page or if this proposal can be re-purposed. HappyCamp23 (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Per above. Also the OP has a very suspicious history of editing everything related to docker and changing it to point to the software. --Lenticel (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC
    Please provide supporting proof for the statement of "editing EVERYTHING related to docker and changing it to point to the software". This appears to be hyperbole to me. As in reality almost all of my edits have been to change things related to docker and point them to Stevedore HappyCamp23 (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Also the OP has a very suspicious history of editing everything related to docker and changing it to point to the software." Why is this important? If motivation mattered then we would discourage and run off 90% of contributors who take an interest and know well a given subject and try to improve Wikipedia. We'd end up with a generic pablum, without any depth or scope. I think this should solely be about facts. Dictionaries always disambig, on the defining page when there are multiple meanings, and they are able to. But there is so much information in an encyclopedia that this is not practical, so we have dabs. A dab is the mathematically-correct solution. Why is there ever a case here of redirect to one particular meaning, as if it's the only one? Dictionaries have been around for centuries and solved this problem long ago. And it seems clear without belaboring, that most agree here that a search on Docker should land on a disambig. There's not major disagreement after all. Bsouthwell (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Bleeding obvious, given that "docker" is the common name for someone who loads and unloads ships, in the UK at least, and it's a very big part of our history, no matter that there aren't that many around any more. Even though the two terms are not actually usually synonymous in the UK, the stevedore article describes what they do. Far more notable than the piece of software. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per all of the above. If anything, Docker (disambiguation) should be moved to Docker per WP:WORLDWIDE, but that's a discussion for another day. Steel1943 (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, per one of the nominator's statements above:

    "I support changing it to redirect to a disambiguation page. Do I need to resubmit this proposal or can this one be used? HappyCamp23 (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)"

    ...looks as though the nominator supports moving the disambiguation page Docker (disambiguation) to Docker as well; if the ambiguous title redirects to its disambiguation page, the disambiguation page would be moved to the ambiguous title per WP:DABNAME. Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, if we cannot decide to move the dab page here, then this discussion should be closed, and a requested move opened on Talk:Docker (disambiguation). I assume good faith regarding HappyCamp23's motives, whose edits to pipe the redirects were in response to my suggestion, and can support that move. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (continued) redirect to stevedore - likewise dockers are not clothing. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support continued redirect to stevedore - You have been told that stevedore is far-and-away what most people are searching for when they look up "docker", and you refuse to accept this. The only evidence you claim is that your search results always turn up the software first (despite being told that search engines generally tailor results to what the querent most often looks for), which was refuted in IRC by someone else doing the search and getting several times more results for stevedores than the software. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per my earlier advice, a redirect for discussion has been opened here. In fairness, my Google search is dominated by the software and clothing brand, but I'm not Australian or British. – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Docker (software) will likely be a common subject of discussion for a while, then will become merely yet another software, or will fade out of use. But with widespread containerization in docks, manual dockers and stevedores are far less prominent than of old. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirect to Stevedore. Bleeding obvious, given that "docker" is the common name for someone who loads and unloads ships, in the UK at least, and it's a very big part of our history, no matter that there aren't that many around any more. Even though the two terms are not actually usually synonymous in the UK, the stevedore article describes what they do. Far more notable than the piece of software. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Docker (software) Almost all the results on Google and Bing are for the software. A few are for the clothing company, but nothing about dock workers comes up. We should help the reader get to where he wants go. We can't predict what people will be looking for in the future, and the confident assertions that that stevedores will be the big thing sound very odd to me. However, we do know what readers are looking for now. NotUnusual (talk) 02:24, 1 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.

Vanguard building[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) 14:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating on behalf of User:Smuconlaw. User placed incorrect CSD template, so I will convert to RfD, with user's reason below:

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.

Land (unit)[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) 14:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #8. As with my prior nomination, "Land (unit)” does not seem to be a phrase in common use and the only the Google hits for it mostly point to the redirect author’s single source. Land mile would be the proper phrase, and there is already a redirect for that. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: there is no mention of a unit called a "land" in the target article. PamD 19:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. THe "noun (parenthetical)" format is Wikipediaese. It is rarely a likely search term. NotUnusual (talk) 03:59, 1 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.

Cubic statute mile[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 6#Cubic statute mile

Siddheshwar(Siddharama)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 5#Siddheshwar(Siddharama)

Swami Ji Shri 1008 Shree Ram Kishor Ji Maharaj[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 5#Swami Ji Shri 1008 Shree Ram Kishor Ji Maharaj

Terminology of Final Fantasy VI[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 5#Terminology of Final Fantasy VI

Phunbaba[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) 15:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's subject is a unnotable enemy character of its target's subject. However, the redirect is not mentioned on its target page, nor is mentioned in Characters of Final Fantasy VI. In addition, the second English translation of the character seems to be "Humbaba", but the article Humbaba does not reference the redirect's title as an alternate name, nor references the subject of the nominated redirect. For these reason, I believe this redirect should be deleted per WP:NOTWIKIA and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 01:00, 26 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.

BA ROBERTSON[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) 14:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need this abrasive shouted title when BA Robertson exists. Launchballer 00:02, 26 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_26&oldid=1141906312"