Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 21, 2014.

Hip fracture treatment[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 refine target to Hip_fracture#Management. Plausible search term with relevant information at the target. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

created when hip fracture was split, and then subsequently merged. No linking pages currently Mschamberlain (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, discussed at target, refine target to Hip_fracture#Management. Apart from being a plausible search term, it's likely that there are links from outside Wikipedia and that people have bookmarked it. Siuenti (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and refine per Siuenti and the >200 views in August. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siuenti --Lenticel (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:MAD edit history needs to be kept around if it was merged. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine per above. BTW calling the section "Management" sounds weird to me. I don't see how "managing hip fracture" would be a more common phrase than "treating hip fracture". 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:45, 23 September 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.

Easter Island Syndrome[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. (non-admin closure) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful and misleading redirect: no indication in target page what the syndrome is. ÷seresin 06:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As far as I can tell, the term was coined by William E. Rees in a 2002 article published in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society.[1] Rees refers to the idea in this way: "The exuberant flowering of complex societies seems invariably to be followed by their unceremonious wilting and collapse." Rees' idea is based upon the concept of unsustainability (or non-sustainability) previously described by Jared Diamond in 1995 in an article called "Easter's End", published in Discover Magazine.[2] In 2004, economist Palanisamy Nagarajan began using the term in several of his published papers, and some others refer to his work when the term comes up.[3] Nevertheless, Amardeep Dhanju seems to suggest that Rees is responsible for the term.[4] The term was first added to the encyclopedia in 2003 by a Canadian IP.[5] In 2004, after reading the ecophagy article, I created the redirect to point to the term at that target.[6] Unfortunately, a year later, an IP erroneously removed the material from the article and it has remained deleted ever since.[7] After the deletion, the redirect has been moved, vandalized, and moved again.[8] It is very likely that the reason the redirect was changed to the current target was a result of the 2008 paper "Economic Growth and a Low Carbon Economy―Does the Earth Suffer from an “Easter Island Syndrome”?" file.scirp.org/Html/9093.html So clearly, the question isn't whether the redirect should be deleted, the question is, what target should hold the corresponding content? Furthermore, this nomination has me concerned that people aren't checking to see that IPs have deleted content that was formerly a target for a redirect. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any mention of this theory in current target, and more importantly I see no reason to mention it there. Retarget to William E. Rees and mention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nominator is correct that this is clearly unhelpful and misleading right now. If it were to be mentioned at the target article or at William E. Rees, then by all means restore it. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: If this were mentioned at the current target, consensus would probably be to keep it, if it were mentioned at William E. Rees there would be consensus for it to be retargetted there. However, nobody appears to have engaged with the editors at either article, so I have relisted this to allow time for them to comment should they wish. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 21 September 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.

Preventive medicine in islam[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. (non-admin closure) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not covered. - TheChampionMan1234 12:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Medicine in the medieval Islamic world, which appears to match subject most closely. That said, I am not sure this page is worth retention: its title does not appear to be a plausible search term, and page views stats suggest that even bots are not particularily interested. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen many redirects titled X in Y X of Y, List of X's in Y etc, that all redirect to Y. Is there a guideline, or at least an essay about this? - TheChampionMan1234 03:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, not directly. WP:REDLINK and WP:RFD#DELETE #10, especially taken together, strongly suggest deleting "X in Y" type redirects unless there's significant discussion of X at Y. See also WP:RFDOUTCOMES#With possibilities. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And while Medicine in the medieval Islamic world does discuss preventative medicine somewhat, it's not a good match for the search term. Were I using it, I'd be expecting information on Islamic perspectives on preventative medicine. We don't have an article on Medicine and religion, though, that would discuss religious perspectives on medicine (cf. Christian Science), and we certainly don't have one on Islam in particular. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 19 September 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, Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this kept, then Preventative medicine in islam, Preventive medicine in Islam and Preventative medicine in Islam should be created as redirect to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Thry's comment. I was thinking along the same lines, but will go beyond a comment to a notvote. Si Trew (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comment is not an opinion that supports either keeping or deleting this redirect and so "per Thry's comment" is not a relevant rationale. My comment is merely an observation that if this redirect is useful then those others are also (engvar and capitalisation differenceS), if this redirect is not useful then those aren't either for the same reason. However it does not indicate anything regarding whether it is useful or not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarify my remark. I realise yor comment was not a "delete", or anything else; I just reached my opinion from your well-made points: if it sounded otherwise, I can only say sorry. Si Trew (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • How? My points, well-made or otherwise, do not support either a keep or a delete. Your !vote is currently "delete because other redirects will be useful if this one is" which makes absolutely no sense. Thryduulf (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't fully answer for Si, but I can infer that the absence of the redirects you mentioned suggests this isn't a very likely search term. --BDD (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Because you set out a series of propositions to which I draw a different conclusion from you. I did not want to misrepresent your opinion, so I tried to clarify that we differ. My notvote stands as delete, but your paraphrase of why I think is incorrect: I am a great fan of useful redirects. But as the search engine gets better redirects should probably be pared down, maybe in 100 years to zero. Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that doesn't explain why you want this deleted. Based on all the information you have given, I can only surmise that your rationale is "delete because I disagree with Thryduulf", which is equally non-explanatory given that I have expressed nothing that can be agreed or disagreed with about this redirect. Unless the search engine improves to such an extent that it automatically gives people the exact article they were thinking of every time, without them needing to view or interact with search results, for every method of looking for a Wikipedia page (including the many that presently make no use of the search engine) then we will always need redirects from search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because you said "if this kept, then Preventative medicine in islam, Preventive medicine in Islam and Preventative medicine in Islam should be created as redirect to the same target". And I could enumerate various others, and I am sure so could you. I am all in favour of keeping useful redirects, but all against encouraging the creation of useless ones: which occasionally means I notvote to delete an existing one. I suppose I argue from the point of view of not accidentally setting a precedent. Si Trew (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't follow either because either all four are useful or all four are not useful as they are just captialisation and engvar changes. The set is neither infinite nor divisible. The precedent for creating capitalisation and engvar redirects has been long established and repeatedly strongly endorsed. So saying you want to delete a useful redirect because it would allow the creation of other useful ones (which is the only thing I can glean from your latest comment) does not make any more sense than anything else you've said in this thread. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying this is a useless redirect therefore all the other red ones are too. Si Trew (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But why do you think it is useless? Your only rationale so far has been to say it's based on what I said, when I didn't say anything that expressed an opinion about whether it is useful or useless. I said: If X is true then Y is also true, and implied that if X is false then Y is also false. You seem to following this with, therefore X and Y are both false. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Because "preventative medicine" is not mentioned in the target article; neither is "preventive medicine", in Islam or otherwise. "Medicine" is not in the article text at all, "preventive" or otherwise". Refs 161 and 167 have clues, but they are refs, not article text. Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 22 September 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.

Bawstun[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 1#Bawstun

Ym Maris[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) 18:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is it supposed to mean?, a Google search is no help as it returns only Wikipedia mirrors. - TheChampionMan1234 00:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't know what it is meant to mean, but it looks to me like a misspelling of the Welsh for "In Paris" (which would properly be "Ym Mharis"). Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiktionary doesn't help with this either, there are no relevant words at either wikt:ym or wikt:Maris and no translations of Paris are given as "Maris". Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, Welsh (uniquely I think) declines at the start of words rather than the end. But misspellings of foreign language terms surely do not belong in the English language Wikipedia? Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not unique to Welsh by any means, see Consonant mutation.
      Misspellings of foreign language terms can be excellent redirects in the English Wikipedia, as English speakers are more likely to make errors in spelling words in unfamiliar languages and orthographies than they are their own. However, this is only true for plausible misspellings of terms that are themselves either article titles or redirects. "Ym Maris" I would certainly regard as a plausible misspelling as "Mh" is not a common feature of English and the sound difference between "Maris" and "Mharis" is only slight and again not something typically found in English.
      However "ym Mharis" is not a useful search term so misspellings of it are not either. We do have a redirect at In Paris, but that points not to the city but to Niggas in Paris - a song by American rappers with no connection with Wales or the Welsh language I am aware of from the article (rap is not my preferred musical genre) (if it did have, then the redirect should be considered for targetting there rather than the city article anyway). We do not, and imho should not, have In Cardiff (Yng Nghaerdydd in Welsh) or In Portugal (em Portugal in Portuguese), etc, in any language without there being a specific reason for that specific case. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as confusing synonym (if it can even be called as that).--Lenticel (talk) 04:44, 22 September 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.

Where2[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, refining target to Google Maps#Acquisitions for clarity. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name of 3rd party website unrelated to target. - TheChampionMan1234 00:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm not sure if the name is ever used without spaces, but Where 2 Technologies was a company that was purchased by google in 2004 to allow them to create google maps.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Eh, I actually agree that this should be deleted. Where 2 technologies should be created as a redirect, but this spacing seems to be an unlikely search, as Si Trew's comment below notes.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Now I'm neutral, decisions are hard!--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We don't have Where 2 or Where 2 Technologies, though. "Where 2 Technologies" is indeed mentioned at the target, and I guess this could be {{R from alternate punctuation}} if those redirects were created? Stats show usually hits in the high single digits to low tens most days, but a spike to over thirty on the 20 August this year. The redirect's history does not indicate any change around that time; the target's was edited they day previously, but a minor edit (and marked as such). Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Circa 10 hits most days indicates this is a very well used redirect and should be kept if there is a suitable target and while not perfect the current one does seem to fit the bill. As for redirect tagging, I'd suggest using {{R from camelcase}} with a note explaining that it is pointing to the same target as the non-camelcase version. Thryduulf (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I note we now do have the two Rs I mentioned, which were red when I mentioned them. Neither marked with either my nor Thry's suggestion; what's the point of discussing anything? Si Trew (talk) 13:43, 22 September 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_September_21&oldid=1039435089"