Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 24, 2014.

Académie française[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) 18:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 20:40, 24 November 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.

Warthog Jump[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. The VfD was actually closed as merge, not redirect, and content actually was merged as a result. Normally, that would mean the redirect should be kept. However, all of that merged content (this is from 2005) has since been removed, and should probably never be added again anyway. Thus, I believe it's alright to delete. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the redirect seems to possibly had notability previously, but the phrase is not specifically mentioned in the article anywhere. Also, per the redirect's history, it was previously an article in 2004–2005, but was nominated for WP:VFD in 2005 with the result of redirecting, which essentially establishes this redirect's topic's lack of notability. Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it seems that it's just a neat trick to do in-game but is otherwise non-notable even within the game. No sense to even mention in within the article itself.--Lenticel (talk) 02:06, 26 November 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.

Milli İstihbarat Teşkilatı[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) 17:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 16:30, 24 November 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.

Directed Energy Directorate.[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) 17:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term due to a typo. The correct name is Directed Energy Directorate (without the period). Senator2029 “Talk” 09:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. With the exception of August (for reasons unknown), this is only getting 1-3 hits/month which is exactly what one can expect from bots and spiders. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf, a surprise to see Thryduulf listing for deletion, so taken as read. Si Trew (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The evidence available suggests this is unused by humans and so deletion doesn't have the harm it would in other cases. Trailing punctuation is, while not strictly harmful, confusing (I didn't spot the difference until I read the "(without the period)" note) and of no benefit. I'm not against the deletion of things per se, I'm just against deletion of things where that will harm the encyclopaedia (most commonly where the redirect is in use by humans). Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I'm against that too, I think that's one thing we can agree on: don't delete stuff which is harmless or beneficial. Where we tend to disagree is our judgments, necessarily before the fact, on what is helpful and what is harmful. I was very much in the inclusionist camp until the search engine got better, which is why I tend to swing the other way to say "this would be better if we let the search engine do it", but it is conjecture all the same because we can't run a double-blind experiment on what would be the outcome and wait ten years to find out which twin died. Why I said "taken as read" is that I didn't even have to check your facts because it's so rare you come with one in this way I am sure you are right; it was meant as a compliment. Si Trew (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll try to put it better. What I really like about RfD is it's not about policy and rules but what makes sense, and that involves judgment, and also some work, sometimes just a rephrase or a bit of moving around, but necessarily we second-guess what our readers are looking for. The lack of rules, and the ability to contribute on an enormous range of topics, is what makes it interesting and fun for me on what would be probably seen as something of a backwater for others. I like paddling in backwaters, they are far more fun. Si Trew (talk) 14:25, 24 November 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.

Reddleman[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 withdrawn. My concerns have been addressed; thanks to all who did so. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The obsolete profession of a reddleman is related to ochre, but not mentioned at the target article. Delete per WP:RED(D)LINK. BDD (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've added some cited mentions of "reddle" and "reddlemen" in the target article.--Lenticel (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lenticel, nice work. Reddlemen is redlink, though. Si Trew (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is kept then the plural would be a good creation. {{R from plural}} on its own would be slightly misleading, but I suspect it could be combined in a way that makes it not so. Paine Ellsworth seems to be the expert on redirect categorisation. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reddle is also red. The section and references Lenticel added suggests it may be better that the text were ideally at red ochre, since they seemed only to be interested in that form of ochre. However, red ochre is an R back to ochre (as is yellow ochre) so, I'd be inclined to have sections in the target along those lines, but one thing at a time. Si Trew (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is something very weird going on with the spelling over at the target Ochre. When the lede says "see spelling differences" then it is not a good sign, but it has Ochre in the British spelling then Ocher as a DAB (fine) but then "color" in the American spelling. Has there been a fight about the spelling which has not been fully resolved? The talk reveals nothing. I am guessing, but "Ocher" is probably a Webster respelling. Either way, the article seems to me out of kilter with a mix of British and American spelling whether it says it is or not. red ocher and yellow ocher, purple ochre and purple ocher all redirect there. So I don't think the R's are a problem (and would not recommend {{R from alternate spelling}}) but the article itself does mix the two. No note on talk page to any discussion nor marked as {{use British English}} or {{use US English}}. Si Trew (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious – you seem to include purple ocher in your recommendation not to use the "other spelling" rcat, and I wondered why? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 22:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the "other spelling", British or American? Si Trew (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Answered below... – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 23:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the target article, I found only one instance out of eleven of the "ocher" spelling that had to be changed to be consistent with the article's title, "Ochre" – that one instance has been edited. The other ten instances were either part of a quotation, part of a name, in the redirect hatnote or in the lead as an alternative spelling; all of these appear to be valid usages of the "ocher" spelling. As for the reddleman redirect, since it is now mentioned in the Ochre article and is a related topic of historic value, it should be kept. Then, if a plural redirect is created, it can be noted that it is the plural of a term related to the target by use of the e# parameter of template {{This is a redirect}}. Also, if "ochre" is indeed the British spelling (I am no expert), then the article is obviously a British creation, because while there are now only ten valid "ocher" spellings there are over a hundred "ochre" spellings in the article. So if this is important, then the talk page may be tagged appropriately. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 22:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we accept "ochre" as the British spelling (which I am pretty sure it is) we should accept "colour" likewise, not "color". "Color" is in main text about ten times, "colour" never; only once in quote and once in references. (Leaving aside List of colors etc) Si Trew (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ah, now I get it about the mixture. Of course, what happens is that American editors may in good faith use e.g. "color" in a British-spelled article, and it doesn't get caught. __it happens . As for your question above, the "____ ochre" redirects are not other spellings, and the "____ ocher" redirects are (since the article title is spelled with the [probably] British rendition). – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 23:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to various online dictionaries, ochre is either "British" or "chiefly British" while ocher is "US". [1][2][3][4][5] Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tags are in place and the variances I could find have been revised for consistency. Ohconfucius would be proud! – Paine  17:30, 25 November 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_November_24&oldid=1047709492"