Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 24

< October 23

October 25 >

October 24

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

NAFL

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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• NAFL → National Football League (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Confusing since NAFL should be North American Football League, which does not yet have an article (see below). I just fixed a few articles which were incorrectly using this redirect instead of "North American Football League". Frietjes (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The redirect is an acronym for National-American Football League, by which the National Football League was briefly known. Given that one of the NAFLs you mention below was itself only around for a short period of time, and the other has not yet even played a game, I'm not sure either are more of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Since two of the other NAFLs don't have articles, redirection to the National Football League seems the most appropriate approach for the time being. TDL (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I see from Si Trew's link that there are other subjects not mentioned by the nominator with wiki articles which go by the acronym "NAFL", so I retract the previous statement. Disambiguation seems necessary. TDL (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete, not mentioned at target and blocking search. Far more than just the other two you state, a Wikipedia search for "NAFL" provides all of the above on the top set of results, as well as many others. A disambiguation page is superfluous. Nothing in article space links there. It was created 14 January 2014 (recent?). Si Trew (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't recent by any stretch of the imagination. "Recent" is within the last few days, up to a couple of weeks at most, not 10 months. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. Si Trew (talk) 07:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
      • One of my favourite quotes, but not one I ever foresaw as being used in an RfD discussion! In this case however, we do need to have an approximate definition of "recent" and it is on the order of days, not months. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Commment. I note NASFL → North American Soccer Football League, as we should hope. Search for that term leads all to that subject. Si Trew (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. There are indeed many uses for this acronym and none stand out as being a primary topic, so disambiguation is the way to go. That nothing in article space links to it is irrelevant, especially as the nominator has just fixed all the incorrect links, as people will continue to link to it (internally and externally) and search for it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I would have said that too, but the search results are such a wide variety that I am not sure a DAB would do better, in fact would do worse by making whatever was not there have to travel second class. Si Trew (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • That I really don't understand - there is no limit to the number of items on a dab page and the variety of subjects is truly irrelevant so everything that uses the NAFL accronym can and should be on the dab page. I don't have time currently, but I'll draft one later, and any uses that I don't put on there will be because both the internal search engine and Google didn't find them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Premiss. There is a map D for disambiguation, where NAFL → T where T is a reasonable target, and the set T is all articles on Wikipedia.
2. Proposition Si1. NAFL → T has all possiblities. Therefore the search engine is redundant.
3. Proposition Si2. NAFL → T does not have all possibilities. Therefore the search engine is not redundant.

Obviously only one can hold, under the Law of excluded middle

1. But, there exist topics that are reasonable targets but not in T.

For if not, consider a topic Y ("North Arizona Frizbee League") that may reasonably have the abbreviation NAFL, that is a member of the domain, but is not in the range of D (disambiguation).

Y by definition (prop Si2) is a member of D, but not by specific inclusion (Prop Si1). D is therefore neither a prescriptive nor descriptive set. Which is a self contractiction, with the previous stated law of excluded middle. Therefore the premiss is false.

QED, let the search engine do it. DABs are prescriptive, search engines are descriptive. Si Trew (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't speak formal logic (I was taught an introduction to it, but I failed it utterly and have since forgotten most of what little I did learn) so I'm basing this only on the English parts of your comment. Your argument seems to be that disambgiuation pages are inferior to the search engine, which would imply that we should not have disambiguation pages at all. The problem with search engines though is that they are unreliable (as in they cannot be relied on to produce the same results each time), include relevant and irrelevant results with no option for explanatory context and provide no opportunity to include redlinks or see-alsos. Further, only by certain methods of navigating do you actually get to see search results, so those using other methods are hindered even further in their attempt to find the content they want. Finally, this being a wiki, if there is a use that is missing from the disambiguation page then anyone can add it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

But if the search engine gives the results, why bother with a DAB page? What are you going to put on there? The search results? I am a big fan of DAB pages (I made one yesterday that got moved from my draft to mainspace) but I don't see the point of either Rs or DABs replicating the job of the search engine. We are not in the dark ages! Si Trew (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The dab page will contain the relevant articles the search finds, the relevant articles google finds (if different), other uses other people know about - all in a logical order, with context and without the irrelevant results - exactly the same as other disambiguation pages. If you want the search results, you can go to special:search in the same way as if you want the search results for, e.g. BBC or SNCF. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Which, at least for me on the standard skin, means typing in "Special:Search" into the search box then typing in the search term. A naive reader may not know to do that, and assume the DAB (or R) is the last word on the matter. I may be nostalgic, but I seem to remember a time when the top or side bar search did not jump straight through an R. I realise I am drifting off-topic since the DAB would not be an R; but in general it makes me more wary of the "Rs are harmless" mantra. Si Trew (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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.

North American Football League

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 15#North American Football League