Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 9, 2015.

What is a Jew?[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. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site A8v (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as an {{R from incorrect name}}, given the title of the article. Steel1943 (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term and the target provides the information the searcher is seeking - what's not to like about it? Just Chilling (talk)
  • Delete - there is no any logic in this redirect. "What is" and "Who is" are to absolutely different things in English Language. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget but not sure where: Judaism or Jew → Jews, hard to tell, my life. Both articles are hatnoted to each other so there's no problem there, the question is heritance versus belief, I think. Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "what" and "who" are interchangeable in this context. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an extremely plausible mistake to make, as Steel1943 pointed out above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible mistake. No argument for deletion has been presented. WilyD 09:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible typo: WP:NOTFAQ appears not applicable as the title is a question anyway. --Rubbish computer 12:33, 11 August 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.

Wikipedia Commons[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 snow keep. No point in keeping this open any longer. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why there's a redirect but it should be deleted as I have never seen Wikimedia Commons be called Wikipedia Commons A8v (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per R3. Implausible redirect. --TL22 (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope; R3 only applies to recently created redirects not ones over a decade old. Just Chilling (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Keep since {{R from incorrect name}} has been added. --TL22 (talk) 12:28, 10 August 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.

"Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create" redirects[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 really, really, really keep. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deleting these three redirects, as they seem completely implausible. While I know these are initials for the target page, it is highly unlikely that someone will search the target page by typing any of these 3 redirects in the search bar. --TL22 (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since they are redirects in the Wikipedia namespace to pages in Wikipedia namespace, are not ambiguous in that regard (well, at least I hope not, but I have yet to get lucky enough to find another page which these could refer), and are thus harmless. So ... keep per WP:CHEAP. Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with Steel1943. Si Trew (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - suitable for linking to the target page if desired within the appropriate namespaces.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above points. --Rubbish computer 12:34, 11 August 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.

Face Changing/ Bian Lian[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) 02:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an implausibly punctuated and rephrased version of the subject's name, with no incoming links. There already exists a redirect from face changing to bian lian which is sensible and sufficient. Psychonaut (talk) 10:27, 9 August 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.

Parahuman[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) 02:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is using "parahuman" as a neologism for "human-animal hybrid". This already failed at AFD for complete lack of supporting references: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parahuman. See that AFD for details of why this is not a sensible redirect. The actual use found in Googling is a (not yet Wikipedia-notable) science fiction story where it's the in-story term for superheroes. These redirects are idiosyncratic and the term has failed Wikipedia inspection already. Other redirects with the same problem: Parahuman‎s, Para-human. David Gerard (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neologism with no evidence of use widespread enough to warrant a redirect here. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons. --Rubbish computer 12:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To be honest, upon further thought I honestly am not sure if the redirects are useful or not. I suppose I'll just go with whatever consensus develops. My notion at first was that even though "para-human" is a pretty obscure neologism for a very specific type of hybrid creature, it might make sense to link to the broad, general article that discusses hybrid-like entities generally. But it's not very clear. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The AfD already established that we shouldn't have an article on this term as a type of transhumanist fantasy. It's not clear why we would want to redirect this term to another (admittedly much better) article if it's not being generally °used in this sense. And a minute or two with your favorite search engine will convince anyone that this term is more likely to refer to a concept from the web serial Worm than anything else, including the supposed transhumanist concept. Since we don't (yet) have an article on the web serial, we shouldn't have a confusing redirect. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not equivalent terms -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not sure what slot this falls into, but Humans (→ Human) is a new series in the UK about very lifelike android (robot)s on Channel 4 and they have been doing a lot of publicity about it, e.g. taking spaces in London's finest Oxford Street to advertise. That is not WP:WORLDWIDE of course but there are many English speaking readers who live in the UK. The ad campaign made a splash on the news but we are WP:NOTNEWS, nevertheless I could see these becoming a popular search term and the target being a disappointment or WP:SURPRISE. But then, the key to that is whether Humans is retargeted to an article about the series, so I am probably gazing a bit into a WP:CRYSTALBALL with that. Si Trew (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obscure synonym. My search says that this is used for scifi stories and some sort of element in African stage acting. However, I can't find enough mention to say that this is a good redirect to any existing articles--Lenticel (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I strongly oppose redirecting Parahuman to Human-Animal Hybrid. "Hybrid" has the technical meaning in biology of an organism resulting from (sexual) interbreeding between different species or strains. It doesn't have the generalized meaning as in "hybrid vehicle" of any combination of two distinct modes. Human-animal chimeras, resulting from intermixture of embryo cells could be parahumans or quasi-humans, and these are definitely not hybrids in the biological sense. Furthermore, robots employing human brain tissue (to take just one such example) could be parahumans without employing any nonhuman animal components at all. I would favor restoring Parahuman to cover all these possibilities, which could easily move from science fiction to reality in the next few years. Human-mouse chimeric embryos have indeed already been constructed in university laboratories. StN (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a discussion about restoring the article, only about keeping or deleting the redirect. Please don't reargue the earlier discussion here. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My argument against the redirect is based partly on noting a misunderstanding used to justify the deletion. I recognize that restoring the article is not on the table, but please don't attempt to police my rationale. StN (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Using terms from science fiction, fantasy, and transhumanist ideas is worthwhile. But not if the terms have no standard definition.
    • The one used in the Worm Wiki is "Parahumans are humans who have undergone a traumatic experience (known as a "trigger event") and awakened superpowers." Which would be roughly equivalent to Marvel's Mutates. Nothing to do with hybrids.
    • A strange British petition www.change.org instead uses the term to refer to a study on creation of real-life "Cat People", inspired by the fictional Catgirls. Which might mean that some transhumanists use the term to refer to human-animal chimaeras, though not necessarily hybrids.
    • The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction apparently has an entry on parahuman, which I don't have access to, but a sample of it mentions "growth in vitro of parahumans, sometimes called cyborgs." Which seems to have nothing to do with animal hybrids.
    • The Transhuman Space RPG has its own parahumans, which from an online list and accompanying description includes Dryads ("Human/Plant hybrids"), Aquamorphs (Aquatic parahumans), various types of parahumans adapted to extreme enviroments on both Earth and other planets, variations of Homo Superior, hermaphrodites, and at leasts one type with bat-like wings. Which seems the closest I could find to a human-animal hybrid in this setting.
    • A 2006 entry on the Urban Dictionary defines real-life parahumans as following: "Someone who displays skills sets or social tendencies that are outside of those of mainstream society. A person that defies social norms but is not a sociopath. Usually a highly intelligent person with a good set of social skills, but who is unwilling to spend too much time with people. The parahuman hates bars and beer pong and prefers to play video games. Also spends large ammounts of time creating and fixing virtually anything electronic or mechanical." The site itself suggests it related to the better known term geek. Certainly not a hybrid.
    • A 2011 article of the International Business Times does use the hyphenated term Para-human to refer to human-animal hybrids. "Human-animal hybrids have existed only in our imagination fueled by vivid mythological creatures, most popular being the mermaids and the centaurs. So when scientists showed an active interest in mixing human and animal genes, mainly to mass produce vital hormones like insulin, and drugs and organs suitable for organ transplantations, it was interpreted widely as an attempt to create monsters which could be half-human-half-animal. Thus the term Para-human became popular as an informal reference to "human-animal hybrids" and many started speculating creation of monsters." If this term is actually popular, then I am surprised that there is no resource on who actually coined it and on what context.
    • The DeviantArt website uses the tag parahuman to refer to images including both Worm's superheroes and mutants, and what seem to be standard anthropomorphic animals of the type found in furry-related art.
    • Marvel Comics' obscure 1980s character Paradox briefly had his own series. In the context of the series, the term parahuman was used to refer to genetically engineered, human-derived races created to colonize the Solar System.
      • And those our only from the top pages that come out in a search. I fear thereare other definitions out there, all rather obscure and confusing. Dimadick (talk) 09:19, 13 August 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.

Mumbia Airport[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. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wrong spelling of city, nothing links here Trinidade (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not just a likely "mistake" but very likely search term as WP:COMMONNAME, not only that "Chhatrapati Shivakji" may not trip off an English-speaker's tongue, but that we don't tend to refer to Toronto Airport as Lester Pearson International Airport (if I have that right, deliberately going from memory). The only one we probably use the WP:COMMONNAME is "JFK" for John F. Kennedy International Airport (which again I went off memory and guessed the stop, and got it right first time: John F Kennedy International Airport does what you would expect, and New York Airport → Aviation in the New York metropolitan area (I was expecting a DAB, so was wrong on that one). But in real life we tend to say "JFK" not "John F. Kennedy International Airport", and "Mumbia Airport" or "Bombay Airport" similarly.Disclaimer: I am not American or Indian. Si Trew (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The canuck one is apparently Toronto Pearson International Airport, but it was Lester B. Pearson International Airport last time I flew through it, which was some years ago: probably they should rename it Tim Horton International Airport: or maybe do that for YHM, John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport (who he?). I loved flying to YHM as you are in and out in ten minutes, it's mostly freight but gets the occasional passenger flight. Si Trew (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Phew good job we don't have any canucks here as I probably would offend them[reply]
I'll mark these airport R's as {{R from short name}} without prejudice to this discussion. Template:R from common name is itself a redirect to Template:R from scientific name, which is no good for this obviously. Si Trew (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but Lester B I chose for that and Lester B Pearson International Airport without the stop {{R from former name}} instead. Si Trew (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - mixing the odrer of wto characters is a common tpyo. WilyD 09:20, 11 August 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.

Benzodioxylhydroxybutanamine"[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) 02:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6-years-old redirect based on an unlikely typo (stray quote-mark at end) for name that isn't correct anyway (actual chemical is "eth" (see ethane) not "but" (see butane)). DMacks (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ehhh - I'm inclined to keep redirects like this - I've put in a few like it myself to facilitate a defective link from an outside source. (e.g. Reddit is particularly bad for dropping trailing parentheses.) - David Gerard (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hanging quotation mark -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also including for deletion:

I moved this, Benzodioxylhydroxybutanamine, to the top of the listing. Hope that's OK. Si Trew (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as the same chemical mistake of the same vintage. DMacks (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom. --Rubbish computer 12:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. The first because of the hanging quotation mark. WP:TSC (section of WP:TITLE) says "Quotation marks (avoid them)". The second is harder to justify deletion, but I feel that it will unnecessarily hinder a search, as giving two or three results when one would do: the title is perfectly fine to search without them WP:CLUTTERing it. Si Trew (talk)
Bizarrely maybe the one with the quote mark at the end gets hits above noise level (about one a day), and the one without gets very little (about one every three days). That suggests to me that these are hindering a search or comes up first on an autocomplete search, YMMV. Neither has any internal links except to discussion, Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the meantime without prejudice to this discussion I have tagged both as {{R from incorrect name}} and {{R from typo}} — though as typos they're perhaps unlikely. Si Trew (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete might cause confusion since the redirect pertains to another type of molecule. --Lenticel (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete"- implausible typo. Reyk YO! 14:20, 11 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_9&oldid=1069619987"