Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 6
May 8 >

May 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 7, 2014.

Bare-eyed[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 Naked eye by unanimous consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Spot-winged (RfD), this is too vague a search term. Readers are better off seeing search results than our trying to guess what they're looking for. There are several birds called bare-eyed something, and the spectacled thrush (also known as the bare-eyed thrush, not to be confused with the Bare-eyed thrush) doesn't seem to be primary among them. BDD (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BDD. BDD did not explicitly say delete, but my conclu from that sound reasoning is to delete. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Neelix. I just chucked in "See the moon with a bare eye" into My Favourite Search Engine and all the results are for seeing the moon (or moons of Jupiter, and so on) with a naked eye. So it seems a sensible retarget. 01:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
Works for me. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 12 May 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.

Presidential Climate Action Project[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 retargeted. --BDD (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-targeting, to Barack Obama’s 2013 climate action plan, and subsequently renaming Barack Obama’s 2013 climate action plan to i.e. Presidential Climate Action Plan. (see talk page of Barack Obama’s 2013 climate action plan) prokaryotes (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy retarget per nom. No-brainer. You should probably make an WP:RM on the talk page of that article. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, retargeted and there is a discussion for the RM, thanks for your input BDD. prokaryotes (talk) 19:46, 7 May 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.

Nac1[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 Sodium chloride. This was a complex RFD to close but what is clear is that there is no support for the present target nor is there a consensus for deletion. Opinion is divided three ways between those who wish to retarget to 'Sodium chloride', those who wish to retarget to 'NAC Freelance' and those who wish to have a disamb page. However, without a draft to utilise, conversion to a disambig page is outwith this RFD. Consequently I am closing with a retarget to what, narrowly, is the majority preference. It is now open to any editor, if they deem appropriate, to boldly replace the redirect with a disamb page, that can be done subsequent to, and outside, this RFD. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious typo (Cl=>C1). Delete or retarget to sodium chloride. GZWDer (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to sodium chloride. This is an obvious, plausible typo that gets about one hit a day, but it's true that the actual sodium chloride article is a better target. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to NAC Freelance as the NAC NAC-1 Freelance actually uses the "1" -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment NaCl isn't the only potential mispelling, there's the NACC1 gene for encooding BTBD14B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - As above, there are multiple meanings for the misspelling TheChampionMan1234 05:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is no good, it should be nac1 (as an exponent)Nedgreiner (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Seems sensible, though I've not seen it done for typos before, that I recall. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Retarget to NAC Freelance. The idea of a dab with one legitimate use and two potential typos is just bizarre. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 9 April 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, Steel1943 (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. In some typefaces, probably most notably Microsoft Courier, on small screens ell and one are rendered identically. I think I mistyped a name of a respondent earlier becaus I couldn't see a difference and assumed it was Welsh ell ell whereas it was probably Russian Ilyich. So NaCl is a likely search term for this if you are on a screen that renders fonts where lowercase ell and digit one are almost indistinguishable. I have my aunt's baby 1950s E. Remington and Sons typewriter – the pic is on the article at touch typing – this typewriter doesn't have a "one" and you use lowercase ell to type a one). I am not sure what the default font is on WP (I use Mozilla firefox) but caps eye and lowercase ell are rendered identically on my 1024 × 768 screen.
However Sodium chloride has its own article and should probably be retargeted there rather than to salt, although it is mentioned in the lede there so I doubt people will get confused either way. Si Trew (talk)
  • Delete, I agree with BDD that a dab page listing only mispellings is very wrong, but I consider 'Nac1' -> 'NAC-1' to also be a mispelling. The search engine already shows NAC Freelance and BTBD14B in the search results; it doesnt list sodium chloride, so that should be raised as a bug in the MediaWiki search algorithm. Interestingly, googling 'nac1 site:en.wikipedia.org' doesnt list sodium chloride either, but 'nac1 site:wikipedia.org' does include the same page from other languages. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To work around the MediaWiki search engine not matching (1=l) as a possible mispelling, I recommend that we create a redirect NaC1 -> sodium chloride. That way the search results for nac1 will include all existing articles which are discussed above. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would it match NaCI? (That is an uppercase eye at the last character). Si Trew (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable Sources use "NAC1" to refer to the Freelance, so it is a variant spelling, not a mispelling. [1][2][3] assuming that you allow for all lowercase nac1 to mean NAC1 -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This is a cosmetic relist. This discussion is just awaiting closure, but kicking it down the road superficially shrinks the backlog.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as NAC1 appears to be a synonym for NACC1[4] as well as the NAC1 Freelance and typo for NaCl. Peter James (talk) 11:31, 16 June 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.

Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (49 BC)[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. I may be WP:INVOLVED, but this isn't the outcome I wanted, and the lack of consensus is clear. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While this was the article title almost ten years ago, it's misleading because the significance of 49 BC to Lepidus is unclear. It's not a year of birth or death—not even close. Looking over the dab Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, many are disambiguated by the year in which they held an important position, but again, no special significance of 49 BC is indicated. A user searching for this term would expect someone born that year, or perhaps holding a consulship that year. BDD (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is true, BDD is right this time. 49 BC has no significance with this topic Ned1230|Whine|Stalk

Delete. Unlikely search term. Si Trew (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - did nobody do even a cursory examination, or are they just out and out lying? The article lists 49 BC as the year Lepidus was placed in charge of Rome (albeit temporarily), but this kind of formatting is what you'd use quite commonly for kings and other rulers. This is seemingly the most important thing that happened to him, and thus probably the context in which readers are going to be searching for him. Although formatting like this is possibly a mistake, it's a very likely search term (and even the assertion that it's a mistake is dubious - probably there are house styles that would so format it). WilyD 06:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did more than a cursory examination. But surely the (49 BC) at the back is hardly a likely search term. Even the (triumvir) is a bit dodgy but that's another matter but surely the (49 BC) is out of whack. Otherwise we have Elizabeth Barrett-Brown (1752 AD)] or whatever, and we don't. (She probably wasn't born that early I just made it up for the example, I imagine about 1810). Si Trew (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so the year does have some significance, but I still don't see it as a likely search term. It's still likely to be read "person named Marcus Aemilius Lepidus born in 49 BC." What's next, Bill Clinton (1993–2001)? Ah yes, the boy president, RIP. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For historical people, whose birth and death dates are often unknown, this kind of formatting is common. For people from the last ~200 years, when birth and death dates are usually known, it's far more uncommon. But this is clearly a case of the former. WilyD 09:51, 1 April 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, Steel1943 (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bill Clinton (1993–2001) actually sounds to me like a good redirect for the Clinton Administration, yes. Tenures of office are sometimes associated with names of leaders, whether they are ancient or modern. I don't feel compelled to go around creating these redirects, but they aren't completely unreasonable. That is assuredly how this one began. I'm indifferent to the survival of this redirect because I do believe it could mislead one into believing it represents a birth or death date. In this sense, Bill Clinton (1993–2001) is a more reasonable redirect, because the chances of anyone being confused about a modern figure are substantially less. Xoloz (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But why bother? Bill Clinton is already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Why do you want to add the dates on a redirect? The search engine will find it if someone had the temerity to put in "Bill Clinton (1993–2001)". I just tried it and my first link was to Bill Clinton, section 5, "Presidency, 1993–2001". Oddly enough if you search with a straight hyphen instead of a an en dash your first result is Al_Gore#Vice_Presidency_and_second_presidential_run but Bill is still in third place and easy to find. Si Trew (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Xoloz's reasoning. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, strictly this should be "Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (fl. 49 BC)", but it is close enough, and there is no other 'Marcus Aemilius Lepidus' for that year so it isnt misleading. However extra redirects add results to the autocomplete options for a search of 'Marcus Aemilius Lepidus', potentially confusing readers efforts to guess which one they want. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know exactly how this works, but doesn't the search box suppress redirects to a certain extent? I can't think of a specific example offhand, but sometimes I'll type, for example, four letters and there will be two suggestions popped down. I write another couple of letters, and there's one suggestion that wasn't present before. I believe proper titles are favored; it may also have to do with popularity. --BDD (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD:, I'm not familiar with the new search engine wrt selection from large lists of partial matching results, so I cant comment on general principles it uses. However if you put 'Marcus Aemilius Lepidus' into the search box, you see everything in special:prefixindex/Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (including this redirect). John Vandenberg (chat) 04:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think that, as a search term, no-one is likely to put in "(49 BC)" or (fl. 49 BC)" or (d. 49 BC) or whatever. In articles, sure, in the lede and so on per WP:OPENPARA and all that, that is how we start the lede, because that is adding information. In a DAB, it is useful to put dates in the one-liner, because that is another small thing that helps readers to distinguish between similar terms. But this redirect assumes that someone knows he floreat (was active) in 49 BC and will type that into the search box: which is absurd. If they know that much about old Marcus then they probably don't need to look him up. I said (triumvir) was problematic for the same reason, but that is [ex judice] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help).Si Trew (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This is a cosmetic relist. This discussion is just awaiting closure, but kicking it down the road superficially shrinks the backlog.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This whole business of appending dates to people's names and suggesting these concatenations might be search terms is implausible at best, but given the state of modern education I do understand the need not to underestimate our readers' stupidity. However, also given the state of modern education it's fairly clear that only the very literate will ever again know or care who any M. Aemelius Lepidus was, and they won't need to add a date to their search term. We are now far past our golden days, and indeed our silver ones, eheu! Incidentally, it pains me to point this out to Si Trew, but "floreat" is in the subjunctive mood, present tense, whereas what we need here is the indicative mood, perfect tense: "floruit". O tempora, O mores! RomanSpa (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RomanSpa: Sorry, I never did Latin at school: that's O The Times, the Daily Mirror right?.I just did woodwork – but I just learned a bit on the side but I always get all the cases and declensions wrong. And of course I agree with you: cos I just learned it from a textbook about Latin language I didn't have to romp through all this Roman history so I wouldn't know his date at all: and if I did (can anyone actually remember all these? I suppose they were drummed or caned into them) then they wouldn't likely need the article.
In fact I probably learned it from that old teddy-bear Betjeman:

Floruit, floret, floreat
Cheldonia's children cry.
I composed those lines when a summer wind
Was blowing the elm leaves dry
And we were seventy-six for seven
And they had C. B. Fry.

— John Betjeman, Collected Poems[Betj 1]
Si Trew (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The existence of the redirect doesn't harm anything. I agree that it's not a particularly plausible search terms, but there are other issues to consider: this page existed at this title for nearly two years (23 August 2002-21 June 2004), so it has a substantial number of links in old page revisions. See the history of Lepidus, and the seven earliest versions of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, for two examples. We must always consider the possibility of existing links when deleting a redirect — when they're not likely (e.g. newly created gibberish), we can delete away, but we have to be a lot more careful when links are likely, and when they demonstrably exist, only an outright harmful redirect should be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it already! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC).
  1. ^ Betjeman, John (1989 (first published 1958)). "At Cheltenham". Collected Poems. John Murray. p. 41. ISBN 0-7195-3632-4. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
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.

LED IPS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 29#LED IPS

The door is ajar[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) 16:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not closely enough related to its target for it to make sense. I would think that this term would redirect to an automobile-related article, such as Automobile safety. Where it stands now, the redirect is confusing and possibly misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned at target. The old Christmas cracker joke, "when is a door not a door? When it's a jar", as a homonym, but it is not mentioned there at all (neither is homonym or synonym for that matter). Si Trew (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though this is a stock phrase used to demonstrate speech synthesis, it is also a recorded message used in some cars to indicate the door is not securely closed, and it is a common joke; on top of the fact it describes the state that a door can be found in in relation to its jamb/frame. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:04, 9 May 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.

Flam[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 moved without a redirect to Flam (drum rudiment), Flam (disambiguation) moved to Flam. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Searching Flam directs here and not to Flam (disambiguation). i.e. should Flam continue to point to Drum rudiments#Flam rudiments, or instead should point to Flam (disambiguation) (or less probably to the heavily-visited Norwegian town of Flåm, which might arguably be the dominant topic based on Google hits) --palmiped |  Talk  11:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Flåm, which already has the hatnote to the DAB. It's difficult for people on non-scandinavian keyboards to type the diacritical mark on the A, so I can well imagine they try it without it. (Angstrom has a character in ASCII and Unicode, and is now synonymous with LATIN UPPER CASE LETTER A WITH RING ABOVE, there is a separate space in the Unicode Basic Universal Plane for ANGSTROM SIGN but they are now synonymous and usually the glyphs are rendered identically), but LATIN LOWER CASE LETTER A WITH RING ABOVE is not easily available on most non-Scandinavian keyboards). On the other hand they might be looking for flan and just miss, who knows. You're right, it gets around 40 hits a day (the redirect), according to groks.se; Flåm gets 60–80, which suggests about a half to two-thirds of people go via the redirect, the others directly. Whether that is where they want to go I don't know, I think drumming is probably more popular than a small tourist destination in Norway, although it looks very nice and I would happily live there. Si Trew (talk) 03:49, 8 May 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_May_7&oldid=1050183578"