Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 19, 2015.

Idiot/Idiocy (Athenian Democracy)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 26#Idiot/Idiocy (Athenian Democracy)

List of every person in the world[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) 15:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect redirect JZCL 12:01, 19 February 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.

NaiveRelativismAboutTruth[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 Userfy to User:Larry Sanger/Larry's Text/Naive relativism about truth and User:Larry Sanger/Larry's Text/NaiveRelativismAboutTruth, restoring previous essays from page history. - jc37 22:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect JZCL 12:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Is this some remnant of the transition from Wikipedia:CamelCase? History is not very revealing. Naive relativism about truth redirects to the same target and perhaps should be added to this nom. But Naïve relativism about truth (double dotted I), Naive Relativism, Naive relativism, Naïve Relativism and Naïve relativism (double-dotted I on last two) are all red. I am not sure, does "What links here" work for CamelCase links? (I guess it does.) Si Trew (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a relic from the early days of Wikipedia. It was actually created as an essay back in 2001. It's quite a fascinating read, even though it is entirely non-encyclopedic. Unless someone feels strongly about preserving that essay, it is probably best to Delete both because I can't find any articles that use the term "naive relativism". Tavix |  Talk  00:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete confusing at best.--Lenticel (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to relativism. As a CamelCase relic it shouldn't be deleted, and there may be useful history although this seems to have been copy-pasted from some other source ("LarrysText" = Larry Sanger?) which was wikilinked but seems to have long since vanished. There is also useful history at Naive relativism about truth which also targets to truth but seems to more accurately reflect relativism. Also, relativism seems itself to be about truth, so having "about truth" in the title is just redundant. Ivanvector (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might be a good argument if it was just "RelativismAboutTruth" or some variant, but "naïve/naive" isn't mentioned once in the article on relativism. The fact that we are discussing the term "naïve relativism," which Si Trew pointed out is redlinked, changes that argument. If there were any articles that discussed this topic, I'd love to retarget, but until then, any such retargetting is unuseful and/or unhelpful. Tavix |  Talk  20:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that naïve relativism is a thing or was meant to be; it's more like, here's an essay about how relativism is naïve. But I'm stretching. We do have naïve realism but it seems to be completely different; not so much about truth, and basically the opposite concept to relativism anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have found LarrysText from a very old Wikipedia archive. Indeed this is part of a number of lectures Larry Sanger wrote out and read to his Ohio State students in 1998, and which went on to contribute some of the first content to Wikipedia. Others which are still around are TheoriesOfTruth, TheJustificationOfTheState, CommonSenseAndTheDiallelus, and DefinitionOfLogic (all now redirects, of course). They're not encyclopedic and probably unlikely search terms, but they are part of the history of the project and I think they're not hurting anything by staying around. Ivanvector (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with that treatment. Ivanvector (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, if this is something that you or another admin was willing to take on, I think it'd be a cool project to give that treatment to the entire catalog of Larry's Text. Tavix |  Talk  19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I would do that. Pinging JZCL, Lenticel, and Si Trew for their thoughts. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with a Userfy too.--Lenticel (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per BDD. JZCL 14:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the same essay. Once the essay is userfied, both mainspace redirects would then be deleted. Tavix |  Talk  16:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question (related): is Larry's Text encyclopedic? Could we write an article about it? Or is that WP:NAVELGAZING? Ivanvector (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For one, I don't think there would be enough reliable sources available to establish notability. Tavix |  Talk  16:44, 28 February 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.


Water : the Organic Mineral[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) 15:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect JZCL 11:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2, "confusion", WP:RFD#D5, "makes no sense". Water is not an organic compound because it has no carbon; neither is it a mineral except by stretching the definition that it is extracted from mines, which indeed it is but not for its commercial value. (We have articles about specific mine floods but not one in general; also Category:Mining disasters but not a subcat for those caused by H2O). Si Trew (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't really see where this would really be a redirect term that anyone would consciously type into the search box. I have no true opinion on whether or not ice is a mineral (although at least one RS says that it is) or if it'd warrant a redirect labeling it as such, but this just isn't a feasible redirect search term. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because water is not an organic compound. ApparatumLover (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete criterion WP:A3 as the article was originally tagged; page creator removed the tag inappropriately. Page served as nothing more than a placeholder for a spam link to a commercial website. Lankiveil redirected to ice in good faith, however the reference to ice being considered a mineral was also sourced to that website, and is thus not reliable. Ivanvector (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, when I redirected this in 2008 it probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but obviously it is not a plausible search term and should go. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:03, 24 February 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.

Xauxaz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 26#Xauxaz

Dark Forest[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 Procedural close. This is actually a request to move Dark Forest (disambiguation) over Dark Forest per a possible claim that there is no primary topic. In effect, this discussion has been moved to Talk:Dark Forest (disambiguation)#Requested move 19 February 2015. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of the Hidden Temple is certainly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. See Dark Forest (disambiguation). RJaguar3 | u | t 02:43, 19 February 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.

Fifty Shades of Grey: A XXX Adaptation[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/retarget to Fifty Shades of Grey (film)#Pornographic adaptation lawsuit. Tokyogirl79, I definitely did not look at the film article prior to nominating this. Steel1943 (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just recently retargeted this redirect to Fifty Shades of Grey#Origin as fan fiction, but I don't believe that target is helpful. (The only vague mention of the redirect's subject is in the last paragraph of the section.) Per some research, I found that it seems that this was to be the possible name of a porn parody of this movie, but due to a lawsuit, never saw the light of day. Might as well not redirect readers trying to find something that is not mentioned at its target in enough detail. Steel1943 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but change redirect to Fifty_Shades_of_Grey_(film)#Pornographic_adaptation_lawsuit. The porn does exist and it was released, but it wasn't out on the shelves for very long because of the lawsuit. (It was out long enough for it to hit the torrent sites, though.) I'd argue that this would be better as a redirect to Fifty_Shades_of_Grey_(film)#Pornographic_adaptation_lawsuit, where it is discussed in far more depth. The thing about the porn is that although Smash tried to make a legal claim based on the fanfiction origins, ultimately all of the news about the lawsuit centered around the official film since the movie companies were the ones going after Smash. It received more than enough coverage to where I think it'd be a reasonable redirect to the subsection in the film article. Originally this did redirect to the main article, but that was before the film itself actually had an article and before the content was merged into the film's article with this edit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 19 February 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.

Plowback retained earnings[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 26#Plowback retained earnings

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_19&oldid=1138580063"