Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 26, 2015.

BTTT[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) 15:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned at the target article; I can't find any other notable uses. -- Tavix (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Updated rationale below. -- Tavix (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- The term appears to have been removed from the target article in this edit, which removed all the B's, with no edit summary, back in 2006. As the term does seem to be attested, I've re-added it, and as such, I think this redirect is still as (borderline) appropriate as it ever was. Thanks for reminding me of it! JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Now the question becomes: is this a good idea to soft redirect seemingly random initialisms to an appendix list at Wiktionary? I know we're not a dictionary, so my opinion of Wiktionary soft redirects are not to have them unless either a) they can be turned into an encyclopedic article or b) "they are likely to be re-created". Using that as my guide, I don't think either of these things are going to happen with this redirect, so I still think it should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about historical reasons (i.e. the content was originally added there)? Overall, I'm neutral -- I don't think the redirect does any harm, but I also don't think it does a whole lot of good. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some sources use this as shorthand for bis(alkyl-thiophene)thienothiophene. Is there any relevant Wikipedia article to which it could be retargeted? (It's also a common typo for BTTTT, the Vietnamese abbreviation for the Ministry of Information and Communications (Vietnam).) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tarvix. However, I'm interested if anyone responds to the IP's comment directly above this.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:17, 2 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.

Stage Races[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 18#Stage Races

Dichoptic (zoology)[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. The nominator's concerns were not addressed. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the wiktionary page for "dichoptic" doesn't contain any specific information about "zoology." -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Dichoptic presentation unless that article is intended to be only about human eyes; if that is what was intended if should be specified and a redirect to the Wiktionary page would be more suitable. Anatomy of animals is part of zoology if the zoology article is correct. Peter James (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither the Wiktionary page nor the article on dichoptic presentation has any specific information on "zoology." It doesn't mention animals or anything along those lines. That makes this redirect either incorrect or confusing. I don't think it's a good idea to "assume" either unless we know for sure dichoptic presentation is notable in zoology. -- Tavix (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is it possible to expand Dichoptic presentation to the point where retargeting there would be clear?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:10, 26 July 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.

How many stars are there in the sky[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 all. Just Chilling (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFAQ - TheChampionMan1234 22:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The bullet point at WP:NOTFAQ that addresses FAQs is about writing an article in the form of a FAQ. This is different: a redirect that anticipates that someone might run a search in the form of a question, which isn't unheard of, and leads to a page that isn't a violation of the aforementioned bullet point. So I don't believe WP:NOTFAQ is pertinent here. However, how likely is it that someone will type in any arbitrary question that someone might anticipate that is related to a topic on which Wikipedia has an article? I dunno. I think that this sort of thing is to be encouraged. I'm just trying to decide how much harm it does. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "edit" WP:XNR to helpspace is not reader content, editors are a subset of the readership, not the entire readership. Pages are not restricted to Wikipedia either, since the editorship of pages is a key concern for publications in the world at large. This navelgazing redirect is a very bad idea. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete "stars" the target cannot answer the question posed, since there is no way to answer that question, as we don't know how many stars exist (and all stars are in the sky, so this is equivalent to asking how many stars exist). -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete WP:NOTFAQ these are FAQ-like questions that would appear on FAQ pages, therefore are content that should not appear on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not a repository of FAQs. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTFAQ does apply here, because it is part of what this project is and that it is not a repository for FAQ questions. Since these are FAQ-like questions, we shouldn't have them (unless there is a good reason, such as the question being integral to the article). -- Tavix (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "FAQ question", as opposed to any other kind of question? Are you saying it would be OK if the questions are infrequently asked ones?
The very definition of a FAQ is that it is a pre-arranged list of questions. Every manner by which one can have a question answered isn't a FAQ. A customer support chat feature on a product's website isn't a FAQ. The Wikipedia reference desk isn't a FAQ. A natural language search engine that returns pages that answer a question one has asked in the Search field isn't a FAQ. If it isn't a pre-arranged list of anticipated questions, it isn't a FAQ.
Here, we're discussing a case where someone asks a question (whether frequently asked or never asked by anybody in the history of the universe) that somebody else happens to have created a redirect for, and one gets redirected. There is no list of pre-arranged or mutually associated questions here. There is no FAQ here. Therefore, this situation is referenced neither by the name of the shortcut WP:NOTFAQ nor by the explicit description of the prohibited situation to be found at that location. If somebody wants to expand WP:NOT by consensus to discourage the creation of redirects that are in the form of a question, that's fine with me. Right now, it doesn't cover this situation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at this from a navigational point of view, because that's what redirects are: navigational tools. Let's say you typed "How many stars are there in the sky" and got to the article on Stars that way. You might think that you'd be able to navigate Wikipedia in that manner, and be disappointed to find out out that most other questions aren't redirects. There's two ways to fix that problem: 1. delete all of the non-significant questions (because we are not a depository of questions, a la "FAQ") or 2. add in every possible question that you can think of, which is an impossible and onerous task. Looking at the options here, I'd much prefer #1. -- Tavix (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no argument with the rationale you've just given. But I can't resist noting that avoiding inconsistency in navigation isn't a FAQ-related concern. :-) —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say they are related because I feel that WP:NOT is applicable to all aspects of the project, not just articles. WP:NOT was written from an article point of view. It is impossible to write it in a way that is "all-inclusive" to other aspects of the project (eg: redirects, templates, portals, etc). You could have a "strict constructionist" interpretation and say that WP:NOT only applies to articles. However, I have a "living tree" interpretation of WP:NOT in that it is shaped by and influenced from consensus, and consensus at previous RFDs have held that WP:NOT applies to redirects (especially WP:NOT#DICT, and there are other examples). Therefore, by saying WP:NOTFAQ, we can say that since Wikipedia is not a repository for Frequently Asked Questions, we should hold our redirects to that same standard and delete redirects that are (more or less) "frequently asked" questions. -- Tavix (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these redirects is not a FAQ, it's an individual question. If the provision had been meant to apply to individual questions not in the form of a FAQ, it would have been worded to apply to individual questions whether or not in the form of a FAQ, rather than expressly limiting its scope to FAQs. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The provision clearly doesn't apply to everything on Wikipedia because Wikipedia has WP:FAQ and WP:FAQ/Overview and WP:FAQ/Contributing and WP:FAQ/Blocks and so forth. So it doesn't even cover every FAQ in Wikipedia, only articles with FAQs in them. Therefore, I'm even more inclined to trust that its scope limitation is intentional and not meant to be interpreted as referring to "everything that looks like a question everywhere on Wikipedia". —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, a FAQ (Frequently Asked Question) is a question that is frequently asked. An individual question can be asked frequently, hence making it a FAQ. You're thinking about a FAQ page, which is different than an actual FAQ. -- Tavix (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The focus of WP:NOTFAQ is lists of FAQs. There is no list here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see a list of FAQs in the nomination. It contains 5 questions. -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't understood that the discussion was about whether to delete this nomination. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all of us want to delete this nomination and not the redirects in this nomination. -- Tavix (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The last item (How does one edit a page) is different from all of the others and should be considered separately. This is a very old page that predates Wikipedia namespaces. It eventually evolved into the page at Help:Editing, which has the content history back to the Phase I cache bug in 2001, Wikipedia's first year. This is the URL that people were sent to when they wanted to know how to edit a page on Wikipedia, before the early Wikipedians decided to separate the encyclopedia itself from the help pages and other peripheral material. This does not, by itself, prove that the redirect should be kept; that depends on the policy about old cross-namespace redirects, and I'm no longer involved in that sort of discussion. But this redirect certainly has very different claims to legitimacy than the others in this list, and it should be considered separately. —Toby Bartels (talk) 16:40, 29 July 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:SOFIXIT[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:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's possible to post this as a reply to someone's query and not come across condescending. Not a good redirect. Brustopher (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It certainly is possible to interpret this benignly, and it will always be possible to write [[Wikipedia:Be bold|So fix it]]. Moreover, it is commonly used. There is no reason to break links on hundreds of talk pages. Gorobay (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term seems to target its best subject in the Wikipedia namespace, and seems appropriate as well. Steel1943 (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #5 (someone finds it useful, even if you don't). It clearly goes where it should. Furthermore, to nom's point, I only use it when I intend to be condescending, i.e. when someone complains about a problem that they could easily fix themselves, especially if it looks like drama-seeking, I might reply "[[WP:SOFIXIT|So fix it]], then." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanvector (talk • contribs) 01:48, 27 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep - this is a widely used shortcut, deleting it would break a zillion links and inconvenience many users. Sideways713 (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the discussion on Wikipedia talk:SOFIXIT. It's very off-putting, to the point of being rude. Not a helpful sentiment at all, especially when used as an edit summary when reverting someone. If used on a Talk page in reply to a newbie who is querying something, the original WP:Be bold is a better sentiment anyway. Softlavender (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems an appropriate synonym, convenient Rubbish computer 18:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sometimes this sentiment is exactly correct, and in particular, AfC declines should *never* be on the basis of 'looks a little rough around the edges' when the decliner could instead just WP:SO:FIXIT themselves. Agree that this can be offputting, but so can WP:NICE and other common redirects. The redirect is not to blame, don't shoot the medium, shoot the messenger, in other words. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Widely linked/used, it would break way too much. I disagree with Softlavender's rationale: It is a way to let new users know they can fix things "boldly", or encourage those who bring up an issue to help fix it. It could be used in an unpleasant manner, but most things have that possibility. It has very good uses.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:57, 2 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.

Project Fi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 5#Project Fi

What is bikini bottom?[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 all. Just Chilling (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTFAQ The Traditionalist (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to @The Traditionalist: I have telescoped these into one listing, as being all on the same lines of reasoning. All or none. Si Trew (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I was thinking about doing this too.--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOTFAQ. -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the rest. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all others; especially "vet" (ambiguous, so bad target) and "bikini bottom" (completely wrong target) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is starting to WP:TRAINWRECK, I have boldly decided to split out the "controversial" redirects. Please feel free to modify/clarify your comments if you think they are no longer clear or relevant. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging eds who have already commented, as a courtesy: The Traditionalist Si Trew 67.70.32.190 Dispenser Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:17, 27 July 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.

What is the meaning of life[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. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTFAQ The Traditionalist (talk) 14:24, 26 July 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.

What is the matrix[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. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTFAQ The Traditionalist (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, of course, per WP:NOTFAQ, as The Traditionalist implies. Si Trew (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is the matrix Marketing term and an arc-phrase used in conjunction with the movie. It also happens to be the name of the website (whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com) listed in the credits. — Dispenser 19:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is the matrix per Dispenser. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is the matrix which should be tagged as a {{R from quote}} (It's something Morpheus says to Neo) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is starting to WP:TRAINWRECK, I have boldly decided to split out the "controversial" redirects. Please feel free to modify/clarify your comments if you think they are no longer clear or relevant. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is the matrix per above. -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete WP:NOTPROMOTION. I think the rationales above are reasonable however, hence the weak.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:31, 2 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.

Takeba[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 dabify. Technically, set-index-ify, but this is not a meaningful distinction for readers. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous. Yukari Takeba is not the only Takeba on Wikipedia. Better to delete the redirect and let the search do its job. Reach Out to the Truth 03:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, or make it a {{Surname}} WP:SETINDEX for Lisa Takeba, Taeko Takeba, and the fictional character. Either one would be better than this. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irrelevant rant as an aside, this is why I hate {{R from surname}}s. They point to the first person who happens to get a Wikipedia article, who is almost never the most important person with the surname, but instead some random fictional character or sportsperson. Then, when articles on other people with the same surname get created, no one notices & updates/deletes the surname redirect. Then people who type the surname redirect into the search box get redirected to some random section or substub instead of seeing search results or a proper list of people with the surname. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate it's already been shown here there are atleast three topics -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anthroponymize per all of the IPs. Since I think this is a snowball, I will draft a page below the redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think Ivanvector's suggestion seems good.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:23, 2 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.

Number of planets[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) 15:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Target does not answer this question. -- Tavix (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't, at least not directly – so what is your suggested solution, Tavix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paine Ellsworth (talk • contribs) 07:50, 26 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Since this is redirects for discussion, I'd like to see it discussed. -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not so: it was vague prior to the definition of planet being set by the IAU, subsequent to which Pluto did not meet the criteria. So we now know definitely whether a celestial body is a planet (by definition) or not. However, we certainly don't know how many of them there are in existence. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We cannot answer this question when we don't even know ourselves. Reach Out to the Truth 01:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 67.70 and Reach Out to the Truth. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. T:S This is a helpful search term for those who may still not be sure whether there are eight or nine "planets" in the Solar System. There is also some confusion between "planet" and "dwarf planet" (a type of planet), as well as "double planet" and other similar terms. So this is one of several possible search terms readers will use to learn about planets and about the IAU decision and their clarification of the definition of "planet". In addition, this redirect has been around for more than four years, so its deletion will quite probably break external internet links. – Paine  03:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is the completely wrong place to point it. That would make people think that planets only exist in the Solar System, which is clearly wrong, as many planets exist beyond the Solar System. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could be right; however, when I think of "number of planets" in these times of changing definitions of "planet", I think of the planets in this Solar System first, before I think of exoplanets in other stellar systems. On the other hand, astronomers when they think of "number of planets" will probably be thinking of the present number of exoplanets that have been discovered. The target I suggested isn't etched in stone, so if anybody has a better target in mind, then that can certainly be discussed. In any case, this redirect should be considered a "keeper" and not be deleted. – Paine  05:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • After further thought, I struck out the retargeting above. It appears that this redirect's present target was well-chosen, as it contains helpful links to the many different kinds of planets from those in our Solar System to exoplanets, and even mythical ones. So my !vote is now just a simple (strong) "keep". Thank you, IP 67+! – Paine  15:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Redirect to Universe. I was going to oppose loosely per WP:NOTFAQ and the above rationales, but I decided to go this route. It explains that the size of the universe isn't known. If this is searched for, this is best place for a reader to end up. I suppose they could be looking for the traditional nine planets (I still count Pluto) as well. Those things and the fact that I think deletion would be reasonable push my redirect to weak.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:17, 2 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_July_26&oldid=1037879719"