Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 20, 2015.

BBTS Siatkarz Original Bielsko-Bia³a[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) 15:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE the accent-stripped forms and the conversions of superscripts to conventional number forms are not even real mojibake, instead were created by Eubot (talk · contribs) as typos of mojibake, so are therefore not even usable as mojibake redirects -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:13, 27 January 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:SHY[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 umm... shrug? Both arguments seem valid to me, so I guess the bold action stands. But since this is the discussion, essentially with no consensus, if someone reverts, it should probably remain that way for a while before raising the question again. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from WP space to user essay. Probably, move the essay into WP space. I came across this purely by accident. So others probably will too. Belongs in WP space, not in user space. Si Trew (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that makes sense, but the word "shy" is not used in WP:BOLD. Nevertheless, I think it's a good idea to Retarget to WP:Be bold. Si Trew (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then be bold and Retarget it then ;) --Lenticel (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the irony... :) Steel1943 (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • general comment. Consensus at RfD on pretty much every occasion they have been discussed is that WP: shortcuts to userspace essays can be appropriate and so their cross-namespace nature is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, what cases are you thinking of? The only ones that come to mind for me are the Yogurt Rule/Yogurt Principle and Concision razor cases, all of which had pretty strong consensus to delete. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you think the target should be in Wikipedia space not userspace then, you have yet again confused RfD with RM, but if the user is still active (I haven't looked) please consult with them before moving or requesting the move of one of their userspace pages. Thryduulf (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf - the message of this essay is slightly different than WP:BOLD - less about content and more about general behaviour. We keep a lot of essays that are about very similar concepts. Ivanvector (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Be bold unless the redirect's current target is moved into the Wikipedia: name space. If it gets moved there, then "keep". Cross space redirects from the Wikipedia namespace to the User namespace promote seemingly one editor's opinion as Wikipedia's opinion, and that should not be encouraged ... unless the community accepts that opinion as their own, and then, the target should belong in the Wikipedia namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, optionally moving target to Wikipedia space. strongly oppose retargetting. @BDD: I can't remember the specific cases ottomh and this computer is atrocious for that sort of searching (it took nearly 5 minutes to open this page for example) so I'll have to look later. I do remember in one or both of the yoghurt-related cases I was not the only one to say that the problem was with those specific redirects not with WP -> user redirects in general. The basic argument is that WP shortcuts do not endorse an essay as being adopted by the community, they just provide a reference to it - if you do not recognise a link then you should follow it and read it. Any link can be misused, but in most cases that should be dealt with by discussion with the person misusing the link rather than changing or deleting the link (the yoghurt ones were the exceptions I've seen the last several years at least). I am opposed to retargetting as although the target is similar it is not the same, and it seems the distinction was intentional so retargetting this would change the meaning of previous uses which we should very rarely do - WP:BOLD is a very well known and recognised shortcut and I'm not seeing any necessity or benefit in pointing this less known one there. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf, sorry for your connectivity problems (I have them too, it's frustrating, but does at least remind us of WP:ACCESSIBILITY and that not everyone has fast always-on connections on huge screens etc. My T key sticks a lot but seems to have got better lately.) As a CNR this is obviously a WP:SURPRISE, user essays belong (or used to) in WP space, e.g mine and another's WP:OWNFEET went over into WP space, at that time we didn't have Draft: namespace (what a godsend that namespace is!) — or rather we did because I think an editor can create any namespace at any time, but it was not widely recognised and tied up etc, so one tended to draft things in user space — So I'm retargetting so it is not a WP:SURPRISE. Quite happy for this to be the usual WP:BRD but someone has to do something. Si Trew (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I just retargeted it to WP:BOLD, being BOLD and not SHY. Since this has been relisted and so on, someone has to do something since patently its current target is unsatisfactory, and as in real life it is easier to argue "that is definitely not right" than to say "hmm, that may be one of a hundred and one things that could maybe be right if I think about them for a bit". So it points to BOLD now. (User:Lenticel, see, I ain't shy!) Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 22 January 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.

Redirects to Halo (series)[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 varied. See my comment at the bottom of the discussion. I've converted Energy sword into an article, some of these are being deleted, and some are being retargeted and may be renominated. I'm deleting the last one on this nomination, since neither "UNSCDF" nor "UNSDCF" is mentioned there. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination contains several redirects towards Halo (series) that are terms and in-game concepts in the game series that are neither mentioned at the article, nor its subject explained in detail enough for the redirect to prove helpful. So, delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange... anyways I've changed my former comment. --Lenticel (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Energy sword" makes me think lightsaber, though it's probably too obscure a synonym to retarget there. Just plain Energy weapon redirects to Directed-energy weapon, which is real, if largely experimental, technology. There's a hatnote to Raygun, but we don't seem to discuss the idea of an energy-based melee weapon in its own article. A lightsaber or a Halo sword aren't really magic swords, Clarke's third law notwithstanding. This might be a candidate for its own article. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm fairly surprised there isn't a timeline of, list of locations and list of notable items since Halo is a fairly extensive and popular fictional universe, and other fictional universes have such list articles. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget "Reach (planet)" , "Battle of Reach" and variants thereof to Halo: Reach, the game that specifically covers the battle. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This subject is not identified as its own separate subject at this proposed title, nor has an exclusive relation to this proposed target. Steel1943 (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The game "Halo: Reach" is a combat battle game that takes place on the planet Reach, and the primary property in the Halo franchise concerning Reach. Any other uses can be hatnoted, if any other article covers any information on these topics. As it is, this article has information on the Battle of Reach and the planet Reach, and is set there at that time. The entire game is set in the Battle of Reach on planet Reach. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Retarget "New Mombasa" and variants thereof to Halo: ODST, which primarily focuses on New Mombasa and the Battle there. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This subject is not identified as its own separate subject at this proposed title, nor has an exclusive relation to this proposed target. Steel1943 (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This game is the primary property in the Halo franchise dealing with New Mombasa, and contains information about New Mombasa. Any other uses can be hatnoted, if they exist in another article. As it is, this article has the information, and is set at the location "New Mombasa" during the battle there. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this redirect is not specifically mentioned at the proposed target, or in a way that would help those who are not familiar with the Halo gaming series understand the reason why that specific redirect targets the proposed retargeting option. Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The target deals with the UNSCDF, subunits of the UNSCDF are therefore part of that topic, if no other articles covers it. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would any of these actually be referred to as "Eridanus 2" though? If not, search results would be the way to go. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are rarely referred to as such. So, it is possible search results might be better. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Convert to set index "energy sword", to the various fictional energy swords (ie. light saber, etc). -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I'm wondering if some of these should be unbundled; others could probably be deleted at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've been wondering a bit about these for Battle of Reach. Reach, Cambridgeshire (just about) has an embankment called the Devil's Dyke, Cambridgeshire, which actually extends from the back of Newmarket Racecourse (half in Cambridgeshire and half in Suffolk) to Reach, and it is quite a nice walk if you fancy it and have some boots. (There's a nice pub at Reach if you take it the other way). Now, the reason that Reach has an embankment, according to Bill Bryson, was that the pagans built it forteen feet high first to see what a hill looks like and second to keep the Romans out. The Romans, being Roman (according to Bryson) then managed to evade the embankment by the simple expedient of marching around it. The Folk History Museum in Cambridge will have records. Si Trew (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ALso Energy's word (abbr for "Energy is the word") seems a perfectly plausible synonym to me for "Energy sword". That one I would delete as WP:ÉRFD#D2 confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 00:59, 26 January 2015
  • So here's where we stand: the IP makes decent arguments for the Reach, New Mombasa, and Marine Force Recon redirects, though so does Steel1943; both approaches seem to have their pros and cons, but since deletion is supposed to be a last resort, I'm inclined to redirect them, with no prejudice against individual renominations. I'm still intending to make Energy sword into an article, though I probably won't get to it for a couple of days still. Everything else is on track to be deleted. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 27 January 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.

Us military command hacked by ISIS[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) 15:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created regarding a breaking news story about a social media back to an article about identify theft. Frankly not only would it be seldom used but it is not the appropriate article for this. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper would also apply here. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 21:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section has been removed on identity theft page on the grounds that this was not identity theft. I personally agree with that. At the very least this will need to redirect somewhere else.--65.94.253.74 (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as of right now United States Central Command mentions the hacking so I've retargetted it to there. If the information is not retained in the article or placed somewhere else, the redirect should be deleted. Siuenti (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like it was removed with this edit of 13 January 2015 by User:Mrfrobinson with the comment "This isn't identify theft...see talk page". I've added a courtesy note back to this at the talk page. The deleted content is refs to the BBC and Washington Post reporting that a twitter and youtube account has been hacked by IS/Islamic State i.e. an RS quoting an unreliable primary, which is just fine from WP's point of view, reliable, secondary sources. I requote the sources below which were raw links at that time in the article:
  • "Centcom Twitter account hacked by Pro-IS group". BBC News. 12 January 2015. Retrieved 21 January 2015.
  • Lamothe, Dan (12 January 2015). "CentCom Twitter account apparently hacked by Islamic State sympathisers". Washington Post. Retrieved 21 January 2015.
Considering their similarity I would guess this is from a newswire service but neither says so. If nothing else it should go delete since neither source calls it "ISIS", one calling it (in the headline) simply "IS" and one calling it "Islamic State". (Fortunately IS is a DAB with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant listed first in the section "Organizations", so that's one less thing to bicker about.)
Si Trew (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was expecting Dan Lamothe to be a pseudonym for "newswire reporter" but a quick search shows he is a real person, and probably notable enough to have his own article. Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 21 January 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.

Form, fit and function[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. Per WP:SILENCE, it looks like your decision has been validated. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments please. "Form, fit and function" was an unsourced article with very blahy stuff. I have changed the A to an R doing better, and currently sits at Design Science, which the previous target I chose redirected it to. I think the article as it stood was worse than useless, so am looking for better redirects. I have made some double Rs (now) for "Form and function" etc, which I expect the bots will tie up, they were not when I made them. Si Trew (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the obvious answer "why don't I make the article", I have to sort out this mess first before I even attempt that. I already have a reliable offline source or two on my bookshelf. Si Trew (talk) 05:35, 21 January 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.

Australian Empire[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) 15:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australia is not an empire. This used to redirect to Castle Hill convict rebellion but I don't see any mention of the concept of an Australian Empire advocated by either side of that conflict, thus I think this is just misleading. Hoping the creator can provide insight. Ivanvector (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Is Austrian Empire a possible {{R from misspelling}}, or (even if?) is it only confused for humorous purposes? Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're talking the real world, that's certainly possible as a R from misnomer/misconeption as I've seen it donte IRL, and it also shows up in comedy routines. (and even more often with just plain "Austria/Australia" ) I'm not sure about on Wikipedia though. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did mean in the real world. Thanks for clarifying that. Si Trew (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, but that would be a WP:SURPRISE. Fine in a comedy routine (where the audience usually knows the difference but the stooge doesn't) but not in an enncyclopaedia, would you not say? Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it were used notably in a fictional work (or comedy routine, e.g. Eastasia) then it could be redirected to that work, but I'm not aware of such a use here and the term is probably too generic to identify one particular work anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only threw it out in case someone had a good idea, but patently it is not a good idea. I do note that the long-running comedy act "the United Nations" has managed to confuse the two places (but not empires):
But even that would need a crowbar to force it in. Si Trew (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 The redirect might cause confusion. Si Trew (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore or delete. No, this was not intended as a misspelling or based on humorous reference. The leader of the Castle Hill convict rebellion was declared "King of the Australian Empire". I just added that to the article for clarity; not sure why I didn't make sure that was in there in the first place (sorry about the confusion). I think it would be better to delete than point at Australia, since the internationally recognized country of Australia has as far as I know has never been commonly called an empire. I originally made the redirect because it points readers at the entity where this term was actually used, in case they encounter an oblique reference to it, like in a trivia contest or historical text or something. My preferred resolution would thus be to restore it to the original target. -- Beland (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have restored Beland's revision since the retarget to Australia was done by a sockpuppet of a banned user, per the guideline at WP:EVADE. Given Beland's rationale I support keeping the target to the rebellion article, but I'm also not opposed to deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. And I've struck out and added what you have retargeted at the top of this listing. I think it still holds, though, that although it is mentioned there, it is not a particularly useful term, though it is mentioned at target (as one person crowned "King of the Australian Empire", which I note is redlink). Si Trew (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was toying with various things for Australia in the British Empire, but none seems good. There are lots of articles about Australia at the British Empire Games of various years, but none I think would be obvious or suitable targets. Australian Colony and Australia (Colony) are both red, too. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' The other thing that sprang to mind was News Corporation, run by that well-known American citizen, Rupert Murdoch. e.g.:
Folkenflik, David (5 April 2012). "The Roots Of An Empire: Rupert Murdoch's Australia". NPR (formerly National Public Radio). Retrieved 22 January 2015.
But that still seems stretching it a bit. Si Trew (talk) 09:43, 22 January 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.

Product lifecycle (disambiguation)[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 Speedy Delete, G6 by User:Beeblebrox Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Product lifecycle (disambiguation)", which is a redirect; it is totally pointless Pol098 (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete per WP:RFD#D2. The target was converted from an R to a DAB page on 5 November 2010, by User:Tikiwont, here. User:RussBot then created the "(disambiguation)" R nine days later, and it seems to have slept happily ever since: the target is no longer a DAB but an article (conversion starting around here in September 2012).
It seems to me to have the "(disambiguation)" to a page that is no longer a DAB page is confusing, hence WP:RFD#D2 The redirect might cause confusion. But it has slept happily for a few years, so perhaps it is harmless. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It is certainly harmless, I proposed it be done away with as it serves no purpose whatsoever, just clutters WP and adds a page. Just tidying, not important. Pol098 (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I note that PROD and CSD have both been tried on this recently, so it has ended up here. User:Steel1943's CSD is still open as I write (nominated 20 January), but I write this because I am guessing that will be declined because a discussion is open. If not, of course, this is speedy close. Si Trew (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And Product lifecycle management, to which it once R'd and then DAB'd, still seems to me a good candidate for a merge, but I'll wait to propose that until the outcome of this. Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 21 January 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_January_20&oldid=1037877514"